Calling something or someone retarded because of the implication that its impossible for someone that young to be that smart and capable is....retarded.
Saying my comparison doesn't make sense doesn't prove that it doesn't make sense. All things being equal you didn't prove Q wassn't a larp you just said that you don't think it is. I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But I'm not gonna try and prove it in a court of law. Maybe you are, and I would obviously fully support your effort.
As for u/lithopedion, I was just calling out his misdirection that he tried to use in order to say that I was trying to prove that Barron was on some normie list of child prodigies when it was clearly just an simple disproving of his assertion that no one that young could be Q. He knows that. I know that. You know that.
Honestly, whats so difficult about this? Trump called him 17 when hes 18.
People post speculative 5 and 6 year deltas that are less clear than this until they are blue in the face and everyone gets a hard on for it, including me!
Kill the messenger much?
I'm allowed to be snarky and sarcastic when people call me retarded with 0 argument and when people imply that I'm just a low effort hopium salesmen. I was doing research on how bad the death shot was before any one on this board started talking about. Big deal. So and so's account is older than mine. Big deal.
Barron is Q or at least one of the Qs on the team. Trump said it. It's as clear as him doing an air Q at a rally.
I stand by everything I said about the general vibe of GA now as well.
Calling something or someone retarded because of the implication that its impossible for someone that young to be that smart and capable is....retarded.
I don't know if he asserted that it's impossible. Personally, I understood your assertions as simply having no credible available evidence. Is it possible that Barron was a 9 year old genius who could design or operate something like the Q program? What's the threshold or standard here? is it 'possible' if it's only 1% possible?
Frankly, if your claim that this is the case is because Trump said his son was 17 in 2024. Jeepers. Yeah, no, I agree with litho: it's pretty retarded.
Disclaimer: I NEVER use 'retarded' in my online or offline discussions. I only use it here because it's another word for stupid. To me, your viewpoint is stupid. (I'm not saying you are stupid, just the claim.)
in order to say that I was trying to prove that Barron was on some normie list of child prodigies
Sorry, I disagree and think you have misconstrued this completely. He was saying "where is the evidence?" The fact that child prodigies exist is not evidence that Barron Trump was a child prodigy.
Your entire argument seems to revolve around "Well, it's possible, because child prodigies exist", but where is the evidence that Barron Trump was such a prodigy?
5 and 6 year deltas that are less clear than this until they are blue in the face and everyone gets a hard on for it including me.
Well, congrats to you. I certainly do not. I find a lot of that stuff almost as speculative and as reachy as your post here. I don't think it advances the cause, something I alluded to in my initial response to litho.
I'm allowed to be snarky and sarcastic when people call me retarded with 0 argument and when people imply that I'm just a low effort hopium salesmen.
Not zero argument. But you can justify your behavior however you want. I've made my own viewpoint clear. (you became abusive)
Based on the further discussion, I would not characterize you as just a low-effort hopium salesman. But I think the stuff you are dealing in isn't anywhere near as productive or well-grounded as you seem to think it is.
Hey, that's allowed. The board has it's purpose, and that's why any of us can post our views. I'll just repeat that I find both your discussion style and arguments completely unconvincing. Hey, maybe I missed the point, or maybe you're just not great at articulating reasoned arguments.
Thanks for the dialog, in any case. Moving on now.
But wait.... maybe there is a point of agreement: it seems we both think that the board is not as wonderful as it could be (or even maybe once was). Possibly, we may disagree on the details, but perhaps we could still focus on making some effort to improve the quality here.
To the statement that you don't agree with me: fair enough. I was never abusive though. Most of what everyone has been saying is opinion, especially you.
I also do not agree with most of what people on this board assume to be true or false.
You conveniently never addressed my real points about logic and statistics.
My post was unstickied about 15 mins after I started posting my rebuttals and replys.
In general I see a lot of this pointing of the "you're not doing enough research" finger without the person pointing that finger doing any actual disproving or research to the contrary.
By the way, if the few arguments i do have in this thread are so unconvincing which arguments of the people who disagree with me are so convincing to you and why?
You conveniently never addressed my real points about logic and statistics.
In my opinion, you never articulated this in any way. You just said the words. You didn't make any detailed argument about what you consider logic and statistics. And by detailed, I mean you didn't provide any details. At all.
You should note: I don't mean arguments as in bickering. I mean argument as in making a case for a certain point of view.
I don't really think that the onus is on others to disprove your claims, but rather, the onus is on your to lay out the basis for your claims and prove or uphold them.
I was never abusive though.
Matter of opinion. You were board-line abusive to litho, imo.
Most of what everyone has been saying is opinion, especially you.
Yep. Although I don't know if I agree with the especially part. I think I've written more in this particular post than others (excluding perhaps you), but yes, I'm sharing my opinion on things.
Ok, if you're saying i didn't start statistics class 101 in this thread then your right.... But i think i have the right to say facepalm now. When its something this obvious (at least to me) I would say the burden of proof is on the guy who is shitting on the post not the other way around.
Really the issue is that no one wants to back up their attacks with data and its not like I'm making a scotty mar 10 video....so of course I'm gonna get the down votes from the people who just have a good sense of whats popular.
I can see it from their point of view too though.
To them its obvious that what i presented is cringe.
To me its obvious that their point of view is jaded and blue pilled.
I believe about 50% of what I see on this board. I think 90% of deltas I see on here is bullshit. I think counting flags is dumb. And I think Q being a 10 year old child prodigy is fucking retarded.
Edit: just to be clear, I 100% on Q, but not some of the lines folks try to draw on here.
Calling something or someone retarded because of the implication that its impossible for someone that young to be that smart and capable is....retarded.
Saying my comparison doesn't make sense doesn't prove that it doesn't make sense. All things being equal you didn't prove Q wassn't a larp you just said that you don't think it is. I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But I'm not gonna try and prove it in a court of law. Maybe you are, and I would obviously fully support your effort.
As for u/lithopedion, I was just calling out his misdirection that he tried to use in order to say that I was trying to prove that Barron was on some normie list of child prodigies when it was clearly just an simple disproving of his assertion that no one that young could be Q. He knows that. I know that. You know that.
Honestly, whats so difficult about this? Trump called him 17 when hes 18.
People post speculative 5 and 6 year deltas that are less clear than this until they are blue in the face and everyone gets a hard on for it, including me!
Kill the messenger much?
I'm allowed to be snarky and sarcastic when people call me retarded with 0 argument and when people imply that I'm just a low effort hopium salesmen. I was doing research on how bad the death shot was before any one on this board started talking about. Big deal. So and so's account is older than mine. Big deal.
Barron is Q or at least one of the Qs on the team. Trump said it. It's as clear as him doing an air Q at a rally.
I stand by everything I said about the general vibe of GA now as well.
An interesting take.
I don't know if he asserted that it's impossible. Personally, I understood your assertions as simply having no credible available evidence. Is it possible that Barron was a 9 year old genius who could design or operate something like the Q program? What's the threshold or standard here? is it 'possible' if it's only 1% possible?
Frankly, if your claim that this is the case is because Trump said his son was 17 in 2024. Jeepers. Yeah, no, I agree with litho: it's pretty retarded.
Disclaimer: I NEVER use 'retarded' in my online or offline discussions. I only use it here because it's another word for stupid. To me, your viewpoint is stupid. (I'm not saying you are stupid, just the claim.)
Sorry, I disagree and think you have misconstrued this completely. He was saying "where is the evidence?" The fact that child prodigies exist is not evidence that Barron Trump was a child prodigy.
Your entire argument seems to revolve around "Well, it's possible, because child prodigies exist", but where is the evidence that Barron Trump was such a prodigy?
Well, congrats to you. I certainly do not. I find a lot of that stuff almost as speculative and as reachy as your post here. I don't think it advances the cause, something I alluded to in my initial response to litho.
Not zero argument. But you can justify your behavior however you want. I've made my own viewpoint clear. (you became abusive)
Based on the further discussion, I would not characterize you as just a low-effort hopium salesman. But I think the stuff you are dealing in isn't anywhere near as productive or well-grounded as you seem to think it is.
Hey, that's allowed. The board has it's purpose, and that's why any of us can post our views. I'll just repeat that I find both your discussion style and arguments completely unconvincing. Hey, maybe I missed the point, or maybe you're just not great at articulating reasoned arguments.
Thanks for the dialog, in any case. Moving on now.
But wait.... maybe there is a point of agreement: it seems we both think that the board is not as wonderful as it could be (or even maybe once was). Possibly, we may disagree on the details, but perhaps we could still focus on making some effort to improve the quality here.
In any case, best wishes for the coming week.
To the statement that you don't agree with me: fair enough. I was never abusive though. Most of what everyone has been saying is opinion, especially you.
I also do not agree with most of what people on this board assume to be true or false.
You conveniently never addressed my real points about logic and statistics.
My post was unstickied about 15 mins after I started posting my rebuttals and replys.
In general I see a lot of this pointing of the "you're not doing enough research" finger without the person pointing that finger doing any actual disproving or research to the contrary.
By the way, if the few arguments i do have in this thread are so unconvincing which arguments of the people who disagree with me are so convincing to you and why?
In my opinion, you never articulated this in any way. You just said the words. You didn't make any detailed argument about what you consider logic and statistics. And by detailed, I mean you didn't provide any details. At all.
You should note: I don't mean arguments as in bickering. I mean argument as in making a case for a certain point of view.
I don't really think that the onus is on others to disprove your claims, but rather, the onus is on your to lay out the basis for your claims and prove or uphold them.
Matter of opinion. You were board-line abusive to litho, imo.
Yep. Although I don't know if I agree with the especially part. I think I've written more in this particular post than others (excluding perhaps you), but yes, I'm sharing my opinion on things.
Ok, if you're saying i didn't start statistics class 101 in this thread then your right.... But i think i have the right to say facepalm now. When its something this obvious (at least to me) I would say the burden of proof is on the guy who is shitting on the post not the other way around.
Really the issue is that no one wants to back up their attacks with data and its not like I'm making a scotty mar 10 video....so of course I'm gonna get the down votes from the people who just have a good sense of whats popular.
I can see it from their point of view too though.
To them its obvious that what i presented is cringe.
To me its obvious that their point of view is jaded and blue pilled.
I called you retarded for saying Barron was Q, and we don’t ‘need any Q proofs’ for that one. That is why you are retarded, miss.
Trump said that. Not me. Again, you can't blow your load to air Qs and shit on this without some cognitive dissonance.
I believe about 50% of what I see on this board. I think 90% of deltas I see on here is bullshit. I think counting flags is dumb. And I think Q being a 10 year old child prodigy is fucking retarded.
Edit: just to be clear, I 100% on Q, but not some of the lines folks try to draw on here.