Sign In or Create an Account
Look at the pic behind Elon.
Who is it?
Why is he carrying a child?
Where is Elon’s other son?
Does the pope head up the worlds largest human trafficking network, or no?
Why is the pope “diminished” in the picture, and Elon “maximized”?
So we have Elon and his kids with the pope, who we think leads the world’s greatest human trafficking organization, in front of a picture of the patron of travel and transportation carrying a child? Yeah, nothing to see here…
Does President Nelson know you believe in this “conprophecy theory”?
If a quarter of Americans say it, more than half are ready.
Y’all better get to praying that your hypothesis about Q come to fruition soon.
Here’s the point: did Q appoint any of you to govern or enforce how posts are interpreted?
No? Then piss off.
This new “Q police” movement is hysterical.
Please, officer sleepy, don’t “take me down a notch” because my interpretation doesn’t match yours. Pretty, pretty please! 😂😂😂
Linguistically, it doesn’t appear to be the Q that was posting before. A few more posts and there would be a large enough sample size to verify.
Fascinating to watch the anons split themselves into classes.
Hope the “serious” anons don’t give the “stupid” ones a badge to wear. 😂😂😂
I’m sorry that you can’t seem to understand the basic premise of the argument, but I just don’t have the time to continue this conversation. Best of luck!
It’s called a false equivalence. Just point it out and move on.
I’m having a debate on another thread regarding this kind of thing…
These types of experiences are real, and important, and should be given due consideration. They are profound for those who experience them, and can alter thoughts, beliefs, and actions. I’m glad you had this experience, and hope that the feeling continues.
You do realize that my post history reveals little to nothing about me?
While some choose to be keyboard warriors, others choose to engage in other ways, and use sites like this as a way to gather intelligence, relax, and engage in some interesting conversations.
If you judge a person by their post history, that is your prerogative, but it is a poor way to measure a persons contribution, in my opinion.
I don’t reject it as a part of the process, I reject the idea of it as a process in and of itself.
I was attempting to make a general observation, but let’s bring it back to the original issue: Q may be posting again. Purkiss, with the certainty that only purkiss can project, asserts that those employing this “meaning finding” practice can categorically know that it is indeed Q.
In my opinion, this is foolishness. The idea doesn’t even fit the paradigm Q laid out, which is to think logically, question everything, gather evidence, and use our faculties of reason to determine the veracity of a thing.
Am I saying purkiss’ conclusion is false? I am not.
Am I saying that purkiss’ methodology for discerning truth leaves much to be desired? I am.
What I will refer to here as the “purkiss effect” is pretty simple. Purkiss has learned, either consciously or unconsciously, that projecting certainty attracts those who are uncertain. It meets a psychological need for both them, and him/her/it.
Am I saying purkiss should stop? I am not. We are each doing our best, and deserve to be treated with dignity, which means we deserve to be allowed to pursue the truth in whatever ways we see fit, unless they are causing an imminent threat to the well being of our selves or others.
Am I saying there is a better way? I am. And I would invite people to consider that assertion, and study it out, and make a determination for themselves.
Thanks for your thoughtful response and questions. I hope this makes my position more clear.
What do you know about what I’ve done or not done?
Have a good night, stranger.
Did you even read the OP before chipping in? I am QUOTING the OP.
So it appears you disagree with purkiss as well. I’d watch out… you might be the next victim of the loyalty test if you don’t watch what you say. 😂😂😂😂😂
Oh, a loyalty test. I see.
Guess it depends on how you define “contribution”.
As I said, my observation was a general one.
This purkiss syncophancy from the peanut gallery is a weird response, though. Who is purkiss, exactly, and when did he/she/it become above reproach?
Why? Because in my experience, following purkiss’ poor advice to “read between the lines” and “use discernment” leads to poor outcomes and undesirable issues.
Do I have the right to express my opinion freely, or no?
Banned for questioning some folks’ GAW crush? That would be a new one… (not your threat, but don’t have time to respond separately).
Anyone else uncomfortable with the little fiefdom some users have set up for themselves around here? It’s… icky.
My comment is general, not pointed to anyone in particular.
Purkiss is certainly busy… that no one can argue against. But laziness manifests itself in many ways, does it not? Either way, I’m not here to judge the contributions of others. I was simply making an observation based on my experience.
“Reading between the lines with discernment” is the lazy person’s excuse for not persistently exercising their logic and reason with patience until answers are revealed.
I’m just excited that the quality of posting around here has gone back up. Lots of critical thinking going on… good to see!
This is the most cogent argument I’ve seen for the legitimacy of Q in a long time.
Count me as one who’s “not seeing clearly”, I suppose.
Having dealt with evil on a very intimate scale, one thing I know is that the adversaries of truth are master counterfeiters. So while you describe the Q phenomenon and it’s apparent consequences very eloquently, I still have what I consider legitimate concerns.
Thanks for your patience while I gather further intelligence and try to clear the glass so I can see more clearly.
So you’re on the “this is really Q” train, then?
The biggest weakness in the argument presented here, in my opinion, is the assertion that Jim didn’t think the anons would figure out the SALT rotation so quickly.
Anybody even tangentially involved in this stuff knows the anons are ruthless, and fast. I imagine Him of all people knows this.
Other than that, the story here sounds plausible. Further verification needed on all fronts.