Yeah. I was referring to the linked "narrative assertions" (which I had seen and looked through before) that Alice linked:
Aka that Trump, in secret, with ten other witnesses, signed 'the New' Declaration of Independence" and established a new United States.
"who email the parchment paper pictures of the whole document to Gene Decode, and he then emailed me in late January 2021. I then transcribed the complete document into Word document so everyone could easily read it. I did post this on Operation Disclosure."
Blah, blah, Blah.
For some very strange reason, some folks interpret Melania's tweet to be a secret message meaning:
"Looking forward to celebrating the birth of our great nation (#2 United States) and the signing of the (New) Declaration of Independence (which we will be doing today) at the White House with Potus"
They appear unable to interpret the syntax of Melania's sentence structure, which, while mildly ambiguous grammatically, makes perfect sense contextually to mean:
Looking forward to celebrating the birth of our great nation (which happened 244 years ago) and the signing of the Declaration of Independence (aka what happened 244 years ago to give birth to our great nation) with Potus.
OP appears to think that the former idea might be real, and that narratives around the signing (in secret, mind you, but then released very secretly to ..... a no one with a blog .....) of a new declaration and a new united states of America created by Trump might "hold water".
The verb celebrating has two direct objects: birth and signing (not a verb here but a gerund—a present-participle verb acting as a noun, as in 'Cheating is wrong' or 'Lying is immoral'). The message is easy to understand by simply reversing the order of these objects (and/or by repeating the word celebrating):
Looking forward to celebrating the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the birth of our Nation.
Looking forward to celebrating the signing of the Declaration of Independence and celebrating the birth of our Nation.
It's also easy to understand that the announcement of the creation of a new Republic of United States of America and signing of a new Declaration of Independence (why would we need a new one of those anyway??) would not be casually made in a random social media post by the First Lady. For fuck's sake people.
Well, exactly. But the entire narrative is riding on the back of "the United States since 1871 (or whenever it is) is not the United States created by the constitution but in fact a corporation masquerading as "the United States".
And here is the thing. So frequently these sorts of conspiracy theory conspiracy theories (I repeat the phrase to function as an adjective to contrast what many of us know are called 'conspiracy theories' but which in fact, are real and reflect truth), hinge and get amplification due to really weird and sloppy interpretations of text, sentences, and announcements. From a linguistics point of view, I constantly see people twisting what are natural but easily resolvable ambiguities in language to posit some 'secret message' or comms.
Which bear, most of the time, extremely little resemblance to what Q taught us about actual comms.
Well, exactly. But the entire narrative is riding on the back of "the United States since 1871 (or whenever it is) is not the United States created by the constitution but in fact a corporation masquerading as "the United States".
And here is the thing. So frequently these sorts of conspiracy theory conspiracy theories (I repeat the phrase to function as an adjective to contrast what many of us know are called 'conspiracy theories' but which in fact, are real and reflect truth), hinge and get amplification due to really weird and sloppy interpretations of text, sentences, and announcements. From a linguistics point of view, I constantly see people twisting what are natural but easily resolvable ambiguities in language to posit some 'secret message' or comms.
Which bear, most of the time, extremely little resemblance to what Q taught us about actual comms.
Yeah. I was referring to the linked "narrative assertions" (which I had seen and looked through before) that Alice linked:
Aka that Trump, in secret, with ten other witnesses, signed 'the New' Declaration of Independence" and established a new United States.
"who email the parchment paper pictures of the whole document to Gene Decode, and he then emailed me in late January 2021. I then transcribed the complete document into Word document so everyone could easily read it. I did post this on Operation Disclosure."
Blah, blah, Blah.
For some very strange reason, some folks interpret Melania's tweet to be a secret message meaning:
"Looking forward to celebrating the birth of our great nation (#2 United States) and the signing of the (New) Declaration of Independence (which we will be doing today) at the White House with Potus"
They appear unable to interpret the syntax of Melania's sentence structure, which, while mildly ambiguous grammatically, makes perfect sense contextually to mean:
OP appears to think that the former idea might be real, and that narratives around the signing (in secret, mind you, but then released very secretly to ..... a no one with a blog .....) of a new declaration and a new united states of America created by Trump might "hold water".
Yeah, I know.
The verb celebrating has two direct objects: birth and signing (not a verb here but a gerund—a present-participle verb acting as a noun, as in 'Cheating is wrong' or 'Lying is immoral'). The message is easy to understand by simply reversing the order of these objects (and/or by repeating the word celebrating):
Looking forward to celebrating the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the birth of our Nation.
Looking forward to celebrating the signing of the Declaration of Independence and celebrating the birth of our Nation.
It's also easy to understand that the announcement of the creation of a new Republic of United States of America and signing of a new Declaration of Independence (why would we need a new one of those anyway??) would not be casually made in a random social media post by the First Lady. For fuck's sake people.
Critical thinking FTW ;p
Well, exactly. But the entire narrative is riding on the back of "the United States since 1871 (or whenever it is) is not the United States created by the constitution but in fact a corporation masquerading as "the United States".
And here is the thing. So frequently these sorts of conspiracy theory conspiracy theories (I repeat the phrase to function as an adjective to contrast what many of us know are called 'conspiracy theories' but which in fact, are real and reflect truth), hinge and get amplification due to really weird and sloppy interpretations of text, sentences, and announcements. From a linguistics point of view, I constantly see people twisting what are natural but easily resolvable ambiguities in language to posit some 'secret message' or comms.
Which bear, most of the time, extremely little resemblance to what Q taught us about actual comms.
Well said again as usual