1
ARandomOgre 1 point ago +3 / -2

I agree completely. I don’t mind eating meat, but I would really like to find ways around the meat processing industry to get it.

I’m big on buying local for this stuff. As if that will make a dent…

1
ARandomOgre 1 point ago +3 / -2

Serum is basically blood with some stuff removed.

If you’re growing cells of any type, you can use FBS to deliver all the biological stuff to the cell that it needs to survive and grow.

It’s common enough that I could really only guess you were on a college campus or a lab of some sort. Pretty much anywhere that does work with cells will probably have a ton of this stuff.

0
ARandomOgre 0 points ago +1 / -1

I mean, I don’t know. Then what?

Either the Storm happens, or it doesn’t.

And for one or both of us, the sky changes color and we have to figure it out based on the conversations we’re having together right now.

And in either case, I think it’s a good idea to have invested the time and energy into understanding you guys well beyond what some QAnon podcaster can tell me about what you believe.

I have hung out with people I disagree with my entire life. People who agree with me have little to teach me. I know it’s not a particular common habit, but I haven’t regretted where it’s brought me so far.

0
ARandomOgre 0 points ago +1 / -1

I meant what I said. I was on TDW before I was here and used a different account then, but honestly don’t remember if I ever posted here on that account. When I created this account, I have never created nor used another.

I think it’s less the timing that people find suspicious and more the fact that anyone around here is willing to upvote me or respond to me as if my perspective has value. I am sometimes surprised as well. :)

But I am not here to convert anyone, just understand. And having sock puppet accounts would accomplish absolutely nothing toward that goal and would jeopardize what goodwill I’ve managed to earn.

0
ARandomOgre 0 points ago +1 / -1

I promise on whatever is sacred to you that I have never used another account on GAW since posting on this one.

I might have had an account on TDW back in the day, but I don’t even recall what it would have been. Once someone impersonated me here, I created an account under my Reddit username and never made another.

I have been accused by users of sockpuppeting before, but if this board is like any of the ones I’ve worked with, the mods have tools that can identify sock puppets pretty easily.

Besides, I’ve never been a fan of infiltrators, and have even discouraged infiltrating this place on the Reddit sub. I don’t believing lying and being sneaky is the best way of resolving this conflict.

And frankly, you guys are far too suspicious to teach an infiltrator anything about Q that I can’t learn better by just asking you outright.

-1
ARandomOgre -1 points ago +1 / -2

I appreciate your response.

For obvious reasons, I don’t think I’m going to go much further into religious discussion, just given my status around here. But I do agree that forgiveness has to be part of any divine plan; it’s very hard for me to accept that anyone without access to the One Truth before they die is essentially destined by God to be firewood for an eternal Hell.

The golden rule seems to be a pretty ubiquitous belief in all major word religions, and I have to believe that a general adherence to it is worth something, even if I don’t always get the right answer.

-1
ARandomOgre -1 points ago +1 / -2

I provided the primary court document source from the federal government, which was also the (unlinked and misrepresented) primary document source from your article, and all for a news story I don’t find to be particularly remarkable, only because you requested my thoughts on it. I’m sorry, but I don’t have time to do a dissertation on a random news story you find interesting without any reason to believe there’s anything to find.

As to the second question… I can’t even begin to know how to answer that, and with respect, I try not to get drawn into non-Q related philosophical discussions here. It’s just too many fronts to keep up with, and you and I both know the word “love” doesn’t even contain all the meanings that we attribute to the word.

So I don’t seem evasive, how about “commitment based on affection given without necessary transaction” or something silly like that?

-1
ARandomOgre -1 points ago +1 / -2

Try this:

Settings - Display and Brightness - View

Click Zoomed.

Click set.

Your phone will blank out for a second. When it comes back, your keyboard (and all text) should be a bit bigger.

It’s not great, but it doesn’t cost anything and might be good enough.

0
ARandomOgre 0 points ago +1 / -1

Alright alright, although “story” isn’t an uncommon way to describe an article, so you can forgive the confusion, I hope.

The official story is that the young man had already established an interest in terrorism, and the FBI does what it does with undercover ops and provided him fake bomb material.

The scandal would be if the FBI did this while believing him to be seriously mentally ill. The evidence on this, as was admitted to court, leaned against that. The only evidence in favor is the insistence of the parents.

So do I have a problem with the FBI giving potential terrorists enough rope to hang themselves with? Not in a sterile context, no.

Do I have a problem with the FBI knowingly manipulating the mentally ill to justify a crackdown on guns? Absolutely.

All the evidence could be a lie and it could be a coverup. But I have no evidence of that, and have known plenty of unstable people in my life capable of violence, so I don’t find anything particularly surprising in the evidence that actually exists and I can read about this case.

If there is something else you want me to find, we’ll need to co-research. I don’t mind digging into specific stories for details, but this board wouldn’t be necessary if any one person had time to dig into the Q layer of every news story. I’ll be happy to read any supplemental material that you think I may have missed.

0
ARandomOgre 0 points ago +2 / -2

The Department of Energy is responsible the US’s nuclear weapons.

1
ARandomOgre 1 point ago +2 / -1

I will add them to my reading list.

I am not anti-psych meds, but I have more than enough reasons to keep a close eye on them.

I remember in the days before 2016 when I used to have discussions like this with my conservative friends on Facebook all the time. Nostalgic.

1
ARandomOgre 1 point ago +2 / -1

The first thing I notice is that the story relies entirely on two sources:

  1. The letter from the parents insisting the FBI knew about the schizophrenia.

  2. “Federal documents” proving that FBI agents knew about the schizophrenia.

This story was from 2017, so those documents must have existed for a while, but they are not linked in the story that is relying on them, for some reason.

I went hunting for the documents on my own.

https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-varnell-8/

This is the only mention of schizophrenia in these documents:

Further, although there was trial testimony that in March 2017 the government became aware of an allegation Varnell suffered from schizophrenia, one of the FBI agents involved in the investigation testified she was not aware of any evidence Varnell suffered from any "schizophrenic delusion or hallucinations during the course of [the] investigation or on the day of his arrest." Agent Williams, who interacted with Varnell more than any other FBI agent, testified he was not told Varnell was schizophrenic. And Dr. Roberson, Varnell's expert witness, testified that Varnell was "treated on an outpatient basis for schizophrenia between 2016-2017, and his symptoms were described as being stable with psychotropic medication." Dr. Roberson also testified that unless a person with paranoid schizophrenia is "exhibiting their paranoia towards you . . . or . . . talking about their delusions," "you might not ever know that they are mentally ill."

So, everything in the document that concerns schizophrenia specifically makes the case that the FBI didn’t know and wouldn’t necessarily have known if he wasn’t in mid-episode.

Which is the opposite of what your source claimed.

Of course, the FBI could be lying, no question, but then, it’s just a “he said, she said” with the parents, with no proof on either side, and I can’t take sides without proof.

Now, perhaps your source meant a different set of documents as proof, but since they didn’t provide that proof, and I already tried and failed to provide that proof for them, I’m not really sure where else I can go from here.

To be clear, you won’t bait me into defending the FBI or distasteful practices, but my willingness to accept they could have done this is far more generous than my willingness to accept that this did happen, based purely on your source.

0
ARandomOgre 0 points ago +1 / -1

So I’m not at the point where I believe that psychologists are actively creating mass shooters in support of a political or criminal narrative yet. I am more convincable with LE, but am not convinced it’s hard enough for crazy people to get guns to REQUIRE false flags to see what we see.

There are plenty of guns, and plenty of crazy people, and few barriers between them. Of course mass shootings will happen, with or without false flag involvement.

But that’s fine. I agree with enough of what you’ve written. And I certainly won’t dissuade you from keeping an eye on the medical and mental health fields. It would be awkward for me to embrace my own skepticism if I didn’t feel comfortable with anyone else’s.

4
ARandomOgre 4 points ago +7 / -3

I couldn’t agree more. I’m more liberal than anyone here when it comes to gun control stuff, and I also find red flag laws make me uneasy in many contexts. I am not against gun ownership in general, and believe in the right of people to defend themselves with guns, and do not like the idea of any right being taken away under loosey-goosey interpretations of what makes someone dangerous.

That being said, conservatives often point to mental health problems as the real culprit, not guns.

And down that path, we therefore logically see mental health professionals being the ones to flag people, and I know Q people tend not to trust psychologists for a number of reasons, including Q’s apparent warnings about therapists.

So if we can’t flag people with mental health issues because mental health professionals aren’t trustworthy diagnosticians, then I’m not really sure I know what the answer is supposed to be in keeping guns out of crazy people’s hands.

9
ARandomOgre 9 points ago +14 / -5

Regardless of the motivations of the government using it, community reporting has always been a lynchpin of law enforcement. It’s super easy, costs nothing for the reporter, and basically utilizes the entire civilian population as an intelligence source.

As long as a civilian is convinced they’re stopping something bad from happening, they are a reliable security camera that requires nothing for LEAs to maintain, and works for all of them at once, for free.

Never required technology, but goodness did the internet make it so much easier.

2
ARandomOgre 2 points ago +5 / -3

Be careful about that justification. Research is work specifically because we have to read and respond to people who disagree with us, and meet a standard of proof that surpasses what we personally require.

1
ARandomOgre 1 point ago +5 / -4

You know what’s funny?

When I talk Q with the outside world, I get accusations of being far too sympathetic to you guys, relating too closely to your perspectives, and wasting my time trying to understand the precise shape of your beliefs.

They can’t understand why I “waste my time” reading PatelPatriot or analyzing medical papers for Luciferin references just to talk to Q supporters.

And here, I get accusations of wasting time by trying to establish any sort of bridge with Q supporters, and I am distrusted because everyone is waiting for me to drop the mask and reveal I’m George Soros all along.

This isn’t an act. I’m not pretending to be anything other than what I am. My questions and disagreements are genuine. My willingness to consider your perspective on things is not a lie. And nothing in my post history will prove otherwise.

I feel like the only proof you’d accept of my genuine intentions is my conversion, and I don’t feel like that’s a fair standard for any research board.

If you want to believe that nobody like me actually exists and this must be a front, then I don’t really have a way to prove you wrong. I guess all I can ask is that you do for me what you say you do with all your arguments: focus on the content, not the source.

2
ARandomOgre 2 points ago +3 / -1

I’m curious as to why you believe that.

The reason that shouting fire is illegal is because people justifiably take extreme actions when they believe they’re in danger.

A person running from a fire might start breaking out a window or trample others in order to escape.

Imagine that you walk into a mall and shout, “he’s got a gun!” Then three CC civilians pull out guns and see each other, with guns.

You think the potential accidental violence resulting from this isn’t your fault? You have no responsibility for tricking people into an extreme action to defend their own life?

8
ARandomOgre 8 points ago +16 / -8

You don’t think it’s more likely that somebody just reported the Tweet either directly to the agency or to Twitter, which referred it to LE?

I have no doubt that LEAs watch social media, but I doubt they require anything more complicated than community reporting to pick up a public tweet very clearly advocating violence against government facilities. Parsimony, and all.

-2
ARandomOgre -2 points ago +3 / -5

I know that I don’t personally “hate Space Force” and was just curious why Q people thought I do. I’ve gotten a couple of different answers, so a question worth asking.

Also, I don’t recall having left recently, although I am not always a daily poster. But “thank you” anyway.

0
deleted 0 points ago +2 / -2
0
ARandomOgre 0 points ago +1 / -1

You can try for a medical note from your pulmonologist evidencing your inability to breathe with the mask on due to your O2 requirements. If it’s a private physician, they can reject you for the same arbitrary reasons as any other private business, which includes a dress code. Having evidence from another medical professional involved in your lung care is likely to carry more weight than debating the law with receptionists and nurses who are not lawyers.

0
ARandomOgre 0 points ago +1 / -1

Yes. The location you route through doesn’t seem to make a difference. I had to do some workarounds to force it, and it’s still hit-or-miss.

0
ARandomOgre 0 points ago +2 / -2

Is there any reason to conclude that post 207 wasn’t in response to Elon Musk receiving exactly that much in subsidies two years before Q mentioned this?

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

That seems to make much more sense, since two posts later, Q is talking directly about SpaceX.

And in post 211. And 212. All in the same day.

So should I assume that despite Q talking about SpaceX the day he posted 207, and despite the fact that the 4.9 billion lines up directly with the government subsidies received by Musk, and despite the fact that these subsidies occurred before this post, I should still ignore all that context and believe this was a prediction about future COVID subsidies?

That this wasn’t clearly a discussion about Musk and his previous subsidies in an active thread in which Q is talking about Musk?

It seems like the context is too important to ignore here.

view more: Next ›