Yes I was being sarcastic in regards to your Q#262 decode. I'm pointing out that it seems like your decoding seems rather arbitrary specifically on points 3 and 4. I didn't ask for an explanation on the Q clock, I'm familiar with it. I asked if Q ever directly confirmed the Q clock as authentic/accurate. Answer: No

I asked why the Q clock is not listed as a resource on the side bar. These two questions were meant to challenge the veracity of the Q clock. We clearly have different opinions on that.

"It's obvious to me and others that the QClock is legit based on an overwhelming preponderance of the evidence."

That's not evidence, it's opinion. Link the source of the Q clock you are using. Otherwise there is no way to track consistency of where the sequence of posts fall on the "clock" and therefore your overall consistency of decodes. I've been following Q from the beginning. I recall the differing opinions on the accuracy of the Q clock when it first came out. Again, I have seen different versions of the clock. For example, some start winding at :60, some at :57. That would skew where the posts fall.

"After so many Qclock deltas I've seen hit right on the nose, I would say it's approaching "Statistically impossible.""

Ok, what about the ones that you yourself or anyone else have gotten wrong? If the Q clock is so easy to follow and accurate, why the misses? (Not just 1 or 2, many.)

"It's impossible to be an Anon not be a coincidence Noticer. Some notice coincidences that aren't even there"

If your methods of "decoding" are incredibly broad, you can find coincidences in everything." The saying "Be open minded, but not so open minded that your brain falls out." seems applicable.

And my final question was what you thought it all meant.Your answer seems to be, " I don't know for sure." and "I see coincidences". 🤷‍♂️