Within the Q posts is there not a catalogue of ostensive definitions--gradually built up and improved over multiple years--which we now utilize and apply to current and historical events?
Isn't my post just imitating the classic Q timestamp & date conventions and applying them to a communication from an agency (Secret Service) that is known to be linked to Q?
Am I not just a sort of child mimicking my parents (Q & the anons) and trying to speak their language--sometimes succeeding and sometimes failing?
Bear in mind, I am just a few years old when it comms to this. I have to practice to get better.
There may be a catalogue, but I have only seen fragments. I recall the ambiguity between SA (Saudi Arabia) and SA (South Africa). Plenty of obscurity ("watch the water", "watch the wives").
The timestamps and dates are clever grounds for Q proofs, but always seem to be drowned in numerology and a dogmatic and fallacious insistence that "there is no such thing as coincidence." I didn't know that the Secret Service was linked to Q. My last understanding was that there were hints of sympathy from the armed services and the NSA.
You are trying hard. I won't deny that. But you don't realize you are dealing with Rorschach blots that have no "message." This corresponds almost with nephelomancy, divination by looking at clouds. I am slowly coming to the idea that sometimes Q posts things that are meant as information to enlighten and prepare us, but also things that are intended to be mystifying, to keep us busy and attracted. Now, he does not post.
Good luck in your quest. I don't happen to believe that anyone serious about communication would do it through puzzles. Or that the flow of events in life are all planned or scripted. Some, yes, but not all.
Ostensive definition and vocal imitation.
Within the Q posts is there not a catalogue of ostensive definitions--gradually built up and improved over multiple years--which we now utilize and apply to current and historical events?
Isn't my post just imitating the classic Q timestamp & date conventions and applying them to a communication from an agency (Secret Service) that is known to be linked to Q?
Am I not just a sort of child mimicking my parents (Q & the anons) and trying to speak their language--sometimes succeeding and sometimes failing?
Bear in mind, I am just a few years old when it comms to this. I have to practice to get better.
There may be a catalogue, but I have only seen fragments. I recall the ambiguity between SA (Saudi Arabia) and SA (South Africa). Plenty of obscurity ("watch the water", "watch the wives").
The timestamps and dates are clever grounds for Q proofs, but always seem to be drowned in numerology and a dogmatic and fallacious insistence that "there is no such thing as coincidence." I didn't know that the Secret Service was linked to Q. My last understanding was that there were hints of sympathy from the armed services and the NSA.
You are trying hard. I won't deny that. But you don't realize you are dealing with Rorschach blots that have no "message." This corresponds almost with nephelomancy, divination by looking at clouds. I am slowly coming to the idea that sometimes Q posts things that are meant as information to enlighten and prepare us, but also things that are intended to be mystifying, to keep us busy and attracted. Now, he does not post.
Good luck in your quest. I don't happen to believe that anyone serious about communication would do it through puzzles. Or that the flow of events in life are all planned or scripted. Some, yes, but not all.