Win / GreatAwakening
GreatAwakening
Sign In
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Reason: None provided.

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!

58 days ago
1 score
Reason: Original

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 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!

58 days ago
1 score