1
ceva 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well yeah obviously, bc they're patients. They go to a hospital bc they're sick.

But when you look over the whole population, almost everyone I know has been fine, no major lasting conditions, many having children.

1
ceva 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh I guess everyone I know got the saline stuff then

1
ceva 1 point ago +1 / -0

I have several friends and family members that are still producing after getting double and triple jabbed. Doesn't seem to be the case.

1
ceva 1 point ago +1 / -0

The thing is, you're not able to show me any posts that can conclusively show they relate to future events.

If you can manage to show more than one, they will have different ways of linking to their respective events, showing me that the method of pairing is based on what's convenient, instead of fact.

You might say that you "won't" for this reason or that (most popular is that it's "not your responsibility to educate"), but it's because you are unable to.

1
ceva 1 point ago +1 / -0

The "predictions" I see are often so loose, that you really need to stretch things out to call them actual predictions.

People match the number of the post to the time a tweet is posted and call it proof, when time zones are going to be different for everyone. But sometimes they match the number of the post to the date of the tweet. Sometimes, still, they match the number of the post with all the numbers in the date of the post added together.

And even beyond that, the posts I see as proofs are ones where something like that cargo ship got stuck in the canal halting shipping for a while and everyone said "look this Q post said watch the water 4 years ago that must be this!" Except 3 years ago it must be this other thing when it rained a whole lot. Or wait next year a boat is gonna crash into a bridge it's because of that.

The proofs are when it's convenient. They're not actual proofs. If I pulled up a random Q post you wouldn't be able to tell me what it ever predicted, even though in some corner of the internet it was story of the hour when a political scandal happened involving flowers and it was "predicted" by Q because there was an [F] in the post and the time it was posted was the same time on the clock in the stock image the NYT article used.

The Q posts can't predict events before the fact

Exactly. And they don't.

1
ceva 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh I'm far from new. I was here in the reddit days, and I remember when this was first posted how it was relating to the pope dying that year. Each year they get recycled and reposted as if they mean something and 99% of the time the datefagging falls flat.

But yeah def misread on "movie" lol

Either way, question still stands. Don't understand what makes this compelling because the first two numbers in sequence are related to hitler. You realize 10,000 other posts are too, yeah?

1
ceva 1 point ago +1 / -0

Okay so we're back to my original comment then:

People gotta stop thinking that posts from 7 years ago are supposedly predicting events for today.

This happened last year, and the year before that, when it was 3 year deltas then 4 year deltas then 5 year deltas.

This is tea leaves.

And, as I suppose you've admitted from the discussion after, this just isn't how it works.

2
ceva 2 points ago +2 / -0

Now he is due a terrible May as all his secrets get revealed.

This is you datefagging. Why do it if it never really works out?

2
ceva 2 points ago +2 / -0

Except it doesn't work most of the time. Posts get shared all the time predicting the future from deltas, which is how the "two more weeks" meme continues to gain steam.

8
ceva 8 points ago +8 / -0

Time in the afterlife is not the same as time now. Whatever judgement he is going through is happening already.

1
ceva 1 point ago +1 / -0

People gotta stop thinking that posts from 7 years ago are supposedly predicting events for today.

This happened last year, and the year before that, when it was 3 year deltas then 4 year deltas then 5 year deltas.

This is tea leaves.

5
ceva 5 points ago +5 / -0

You've taken it as a given that this is true based on what? Some stranger on the internet saying they "apparently" did?

That's usually the qualifier on this board, yeah.

All it takes is a tweet and people wil lsay "this makes sense" and pass it on as truth .

1
ceva 1 point ago +1 / -0

How are the citizens of China gonna react when they notice their food ingredients increased double overnight?

So confirming that it’s the consumer that actually has to pay extra for tariffs? Sounds shitty

1
ceva 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh.

That’s it? The numbers match?

Why that game?

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›