Exactly.

Q said this in 11 posts:

"How many coincidences before it becomes mathematically impossible,"

You cannot consider examples like OP's link, as consecutive coincidences.

The probability of finding some tweet today, that matches in some small way with any of the 4600+ Q posts, is let's say, X. The probability of finding a new tweet tomorrow that matches with any of the 4600+ Q posts, is also X. It is not a new coincidence, it is the same probability.

One could also argue, that there is a component of confirmation bias involved. In the above example, the link tries to match "if you build it, he will come", with a Q post saying "make it and they will crumb". I find this reaching. the only thing that validates the example is the date, but the Q post has nothing to do with James Earl Jones.

I am not trying to belittle or cast doubt on the Q posts, but I would like the discussions to be more sober, and not to the likes of gematria. Q never mentioned examples like this, as coincidences. Coincidences (that really wasn't a coincidence) to Q was an event that took place shortly after a post, or that Trump tweeted within seconds of a Q post of the same subject matter. Now those are definitely not coincidences!