So the Secret Service publicly says farewell to a President they protected. This is remarkable? What "possible clue"? Since a clue is only suggestive by definition, this is a "possible suggestion"? Such things are indistinguishable from flights of fancy. Sometimes, "clues" are false leads.
Suggestions and symbolism are a looser form of communication. Indirect. It's what the cabal has used for a long time.
Compare it to UDP vs TCP packets. Written and spoken language are TCP--validated and pretty much guaranteed to arrive. Symbolism is sent and you won't know for sure if the recipient got it.
Sometimes the communications are interpreted incorrectly or mistakenly, as you describe, but logically it does not wash that 100% of the symbolism is meaningless.
Symbolism is like a picture: it takes a thousand words to explain it.
Information theory defines communication as an information transfer process that reduces uncertainty about a proposition. No uncertainty is reduced by inarticulate symbols, and an event pulled out of context isn't even a symbol. You are on target only if you exactly know the meaning. Without the "exactness," then, yes, the symbol is meaningless.
You have a fantasy about what "the cabal has used." I've seen this so often. Someone floats a speculation, it gains currency, and then people simply take it as proven fact because everyone is parroting it. I guess that's pretty good---if you are a parrot.
If you understand communication by that definition, why do you struggle with the idea that Q team have created a form of symbolic communication that this forum is dedicated to utilizing?
Do you think it takes anons 1000 words to understand when POTUS flashes an air Q or quotes statistics with 17 or 33 in them?
Also I'm a bit surprised you think written and oral communication are exact. We have a whole branch of government dedicated to resolving disputes over the meaning of our written laws. 🤣🤣🤣
I don't bother to struggle with symbols. I'm happy when Q says things straight out, or provides a key to the symbols. But they don't speak for themselves.
The only thing Trump's references mean is "I am acquainted with Q." Duh.
I never said anything about exactness, which is your invention. I was pointing out the purpose of communication, which is to reduce uncertainty concerning propositions. This comes from Claude Shannon, who extended the principles of thermodynamics to information theory. But it is, and always has been, true that exactness in speech and writing is the acme of good communication. Nothing you say changes that fact.
So the Secret Service publicly says farewell to a President they protected. This is remarkable? What "possible clue"? Since a clue is only suggestive by definition, this is a "possible suggestion"? Such things are indistinguishable from flights of fancy. Sometimes, "clues" are false leads.
Suggestions and symbolism are a looser form of communication. Indirect. It's what the cabal has used for a long time.
Compare it to UDP vs TCP packets. Written and spoken language are TCP--validated and pretty much guaranteed to arrive. Symbolism is sent and you won't know for sure if the recipient got it.
Sometimes the communications are interpreted incorrectly or mistakenly, as you describe, but logically it does not wash that 100% of the symbolism is meaningless.
Symbolism is like a picture: it takes a thousand words to explain it.
Information theory defines communication as an information transfer process that reduces uncertainty about a proposition. No uncertainty is reduced by inarticulate symbols, and an event pulled out of context isn't even a symbol. You are on target only if you exactly know the meaning. Without the "exactness," then, yes, the symbol is meaningless.
You have a fantasy about what "the cabal has used." I've seen this so often. Someone floats a speculation, it gains currency, and then people simply take it as proven fact because everyone is parroting it. I guess that's pretty good---if you are a parrot.
If you understand communication by that definition, why do you struggle with the idea that Q team have created a form of symbolic communication that this forum is dedicated to utilizing?
Do you think it takes anons 1000 words to understand when POTUS flashes an air Q or quotes statistics with 17 or 33 in them?
Also I'm a bit surprised you think written and oral communication are exact. We have a whole branch of government dedicated to resolving disputes over the meaning of our written laws. 🤣🤣🤣
I don't bother to struggle with symbols. I'm happy when Q says things straight out, or provides a key to the symbols. But they don't speak for themselves.
The only thing Trump's references mean is "I am acquainted with Q." Duh.
I never said anything about exactness, which is your invention. I was pointing out the purpose of communication, which is to reduce uncertainty concerning propositions. This comes from Claude Shannon, who extended the principles of thermodynamics to information theory. But it is, and always has been, true that exactness in speech and writing is the acme of good communication. Nothing you say changes that fact.