If you are going to call my reasoning in this case "subjective" then you have to call everyone who saw trump do an air Q with his hand subjective reasoners. You have to throw out every Q proof that has an air Q in it as subjective because at the end of the day All most people will ever see that as is Trump talking with his hands. This is because that is the most reasonable explanation if you arn't aware of his comms. If that is what you are really trying to say to me then I think you are being irrational and hypocritical because this a Q site. You can see all the "Pandamoon proofs" on the sidebar. Be careful when doing your job not to be like the leftist fact checkers who "strain out a gnat but swallow a camel"
Also, don't assume that I know less than you about what is actually going on. Don't assume you know why I bring up certain things at certain times. I have a better track record of being proven right than 95 percent of the people on this site and that is including the mods. You most likely don't know who I actually am unless you have very high level clearance.
There appears to be some cross communication and a certain amount of noise in the channel due primarily, perhaps, to difference definitions and conceptual framing.
Regarding "subjective": we are, by nature, subjective beings. It's not a dirty word. Reasoning being 'subjective' doesn't mean it is wrong. (according to my definition, at least) Subjective reasoning is important.
For me, however, I think that certain pitfalls in the information war (and also those which can impact and affect interpersonal relationships, interactions, etc) have to do with how we (aka people) approach: belief, logic, reasoning, proof, assumption, supposition, presumption, etc.
Regarding air Qs: my own opinion, and opinion it is, is that specific air Qs were legitimate and real air Qs, delivering a specific purpose (i.e. reinforcing a q proof, etc) but that other gestures which are quite natural and similar (the drawing a circle and then pointing to the center or person that is the target) are not legitimate air Qs.
How I interpret DJTs gestures and comms, etc, is related greatly to my personal opinions regarding purpose, intent, the frame of the Q operation, etc. And, for me, this is the aspect I find most unconvincing when someone comes along and says, oooh, look, he said everyone was executed perfectly! That means its comms, because he is saying that [all these people'] have been executed.
Frankly, I do not see any purpose of value in that. "Oh, its comms to encourage the true believers" - Really, I don't see it like that. Others do. Its a free world.
BUT, the subjective perspective needs to be recognized as such. The moment anyone says "hey, I CANNOT be wrong on this. It's clear and obvious!" is the moment that they confuse the value of subjective reasoning with the value of objective reasoning, and things can get very murky. imo.
Just like the 1000 salad decodes that people put out now, because, imo, they are hanging on to something that was relevant in the past (Q operation 2017 ~ 2021) but which had a role and purpose and from which the Team (ak DTR, white hats, etc) have moved on from. i.e. actually implementing the plan.
Just because some comms are legitimate, doesn't mean ALL <ahem> 'comms' are correctly being interpreted. Just because some air Qs are real, doesn't mean that every single instance that something somewhere things oh, that's an air Q, is real or accurate.
So, no, I do not have to throw out all Q proofs. It's quite unreasonable from my perspective to assert. hey, you either accept ALL the things that I say are Q proofs, or you have to throw them all out. With apologies, I cannot by into that. If that's what you are asserting, then nah, I'm not on with that approach. But if I have misread or misunderstood you, then obviously either wires are still crossed or something.
Really, I want you to reconsider what you have outlined in your reply above. You have followed a certain type or reasoning, which for you, leads you to the conclusion that I'm being irrational and hypocritical. But please, for Pete's sake, recognize that this is YOUR line of reasoning, and you may very simply not be recognizing what I'm attempting to say.
FWIW, I find your line of reasoning as you outlined it rather confusing and confused. It's not clear to me how your reasoning has progressed, from a to be to c to d.
That's not a criticism, but an honest feedback in an attempt to refine the communication channel and the signal noise/ratio.
When two different lines of reasoning come to such vastly different conclusions, the source normally lies, in my experience, to certain differences in departure points. Aka assumptions that are made, and the reasoning starting from there.
To me, that feels like the case here. I do NOT get the feeling that you understand what I am saying and the points I'm attempting to make, and then, on that basis, you disagree with me. That would be a successful exchange, imo.
But rather, you hear and read some things that do NOT make sense to you in the framework you are using, and so you simply reject them and then in an attempt to reason your way thought them, arrive at the point that I'm being irrational and hypocritical!!!!!
Seriously? I mean, wow.
Suggestion: let's work on trying to understand the other's position on things BEFORE going ahead to draw a critique, based on [my own] method of reasoning, including assumptions, premises, presumptions, etc.
Especially if the conclusion one reaches is, oh, the other person is irrational and a hypocrite!
I'm very willing to consider that my own engagement here with did just that (that is, that I tried to apply a critique without actually understanding you position).
I think that backstep is necessary if there is some level of mutual understanding to be reached here.
Fwiw, I do not think you are a hypocrite, or that you are being irrational per se, even if I think some of your reasoning seems mistaken (to me). I also strongly believe that you, like I are here in good faith, and that difference of opinion regarding some of the things this board discusses is not actually a bad thing, but a plus.
So, I'll leave that here. I do get that some folks believe very, very strongly in the conclusions they have reached, But my main desire in engaging like this is to offer an alternative perspective. Looks like I've been rather unsuccessful in accomplishing that. (being irrational and hypocritical, right?) /sarc
if anything I've written comes across as a personal slur or belittling of your views, then I apologize, and hope that you will, in good faith, point that out so that i can at least review it and correct myself, if required.
Communication is at the core of my professional training. I'm no expert, but I hold the value of successful communication very highly.
If you are going to call my reasoning in this case "subjective" then you have to call everyone who saw trump do an air Q with his hand subjective reasoners. You have to throw out every Q proof that has an air Q in it as subjective because at the end of the day All most people will ever see that as is Trump talking with his hands. This is because that is the most reasonable explanation if you arn't aware of his comms. If that is what you are really trying to say to me then I think you are being irrational and hypocritical because this a Q site. You can see all the "Pandamoon proofs" on the sidebar. Be careful when doing your job not to be like the leftist fact checkers who "strain out a gnat but swallow a camel"
Also, don't assume that I know less than you about what is actually going on. Don't assume you know why I bring up certain things at certain times. I have a better track record of being proven right than 95 percent of the people on this site and that is including the mods. You most likely don't know who I actually am unless you have very high level clearance.
First and foremost, I appreciate the reply.
There appears to be some cross communication and a certain amount of noise in the channel due primarily, perhaps, to difference definitions and conceptual framing.
Regarding "subjective": we are, by nature, subjective beings. It's not a dirty word. Reasoning being 'subjective' doesn't mean it is wrong. (according to my definition, at least) Subjective reasoning is important.
For me, however, I think that certain pitfalls in the information war (and also those which can impact and affect interpersonal relationships, interactions, etc) have to do with how we (aka people) approach: belief, logic, reasoning, proof, assumption, supposition, presumption, etc.
Regarding air Qs: my own opinion, and opinion it is, is that specific air Qs were legitimate and real air Qs, delivering a specific purpose (i.e. reinforcing a q proof, etc) but that other gestures which are quite natural and similar (the drawing a circle and then pointing to the center or person that is the target) are not legitimate air Qs.
How I interpret DJTs gestures and comms, etc, is related greatly to my personal opinions regarding purpose, intent, the frame of the Q operation, etc. And, for me, this is the aspect I find most unconvincing when someone comes along and says, oooh, look, he said everyone was executed perfectly! That means its comms, because he is saying that [all these people'] have been executed.
Frankly, I do not see any purpose of value in that. "Oh, its comms to encourage the true believers" - Really, I don't see it like that. Others do. Its a free world.
BUT, the subjective perspective needs to be recognized as such. The moment anyone says "hey, I CANNOT be wrong on this. It's clear and obvious!" is the moment that they confuse the value of subjective reasoning with the value of objective reasoning, and things can get very murky. imo.
Just like the 1000 salad decodes that people put out now, because, imo, they are hanging on to something that was relevant in the past (Q operation 2017 ~ 2021) but which had a role and purpose and from which the Team (ak DTR, white hats, etc) have moved on from. i.e. actually implementing the plan.
Just because some comms are legitimate, doesn't mean ALL <ahem> 'comms' are correctly being interpreted. Just because some air Qs are real, doesn't mean that every single instance that something somewhere things oh, that's an air Q, is real or accurate.
So, no, I do not have to throw out all Q proofs. It's quite unreasonable from my perspective to assert. hey, you either accept ALL the things that I say are Q proofs, or you have to throw them all out. With apologies, I cannot by into that. If that's what you are asserting, then nah, I'm not on with that approach. But if I have misread or misunderstood you, then obviously either wires are still crossed or something.
Really, I want you to reconsider what you have outlined in your reply above. You have followed a certain type or reasoning, which for you, leads you to the conclusion that I'm being irrational and hypocritical. But please, for Pete's sake, recognize that this is YOUR line of reasoning, and you may very simply not be recognizing what I'm attempting to say.
FWIW, I find your line of reasoning as you outlined it rather confusing and confused. It's not clear to me how your reasoning has progressed, from a to be to c to d.
That's not a criticism, but an honest feedback in an attempt to refine the communication channel and the signal noise/ratio.
When two different lines of reasoning come to such vastly different conclusions, the source normally lies, in my experience, to certain differences in departure points. Aka assumptions that are made, and the reasoning starting from there.
To me, that feels like the case here. I do NOT get the feeling that you understand what I am saying and the points I'm attempting to make, and then, on that basis, you disagree with me. That would be a successful exchange, imo.
But rather, you hear and read some things that do NOT make sense to you in the framework you are using, and so you simply reject them and then in an attempt to reason your way thought them, arrive at the point that I'm being irrational and hypocritical!!!!!
Seriously? I mean, wow.
Suggestion: let's work on trying to understand the other's position on things BEFORE going ahead to draw a critique, based on [my own] method of reasoning, including assumptions, premises, presumptions, etc.
Especially if the conclusion one reaches is, oh, the other person is irrational and a hypocrite!
I'm very willing to consider that my own engagement here with did just that (that is, that I tried to apply a critique without actually understanding you position).
I think that backstep is necessary if there is some level of mutual understanding to be reached here.
Fwiw, I do not think you are a hypocrite, or that you are being irrational per se, even if I think some of your reasoning seems mistaken (to me). I also strongly believe that you, like I are here in good faith, and that difference of opinion regarding some of the things this board discusses is not actually a bad thing, but a plus.
So, I'll leave that here. I do get that some folks believe very, very strongly in the conclusions they have reached, But my main desire in engaging like this is to offer an alternative perspective. Looks like I've been rather unsuccessful in accomplishing that. (being irrational and hypocritical, right?) /sarc
if anything I've written comes across as a personal slur or belittling of your views, then I apologize, and hope that you will, in good faith, point that out so that i can at least review it and correct myself, if required.
Communication is at the core of my professional training. I'm no expert, but I hold the value of successful communication very highly.
cheers