-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -sIxteen-

a reply to: crankyoldman

Damn well put!. NK was shut off.. SA had a bad day in Vegas...Iran Next? What now?

The Deep state is Panicking, Now what?

The countermeasures are in place..

This is not a game. Where are they?

a reply to: Sabrechucker

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: 1point92AU

"Threads like these" not "ATS threads". There are other forums where Q is discussed.

Q followers isn't "all" Q followers. The context was based on that one post I replied to, implying the Q followers that hold that to be true.

Interesting that you couldn't see what was really being implied but instead had to imagine something completely different.

ETA: Also, threads like these doesn't mean that every post of every thread is people saying they have amassed a mountain of evidence, that would be a ridiculous statement.

If you read it correctly it means at some point or points within these threads, and others in other forums, some people express their belief that Q is about gathering evidence so that it can be used in court.

That "one" is an example of that but I'm not going to go scouring the net or even ATS for every example.

No need to scour the net because a simple Google search yields the ONLY example. Google does a pretty good job of cataloguing everything, everywhere.

When you say "Q followers" you are making an assumed inference of ALL Q followers. "Q followers" is an absolute statement. There is no ambiguity there. Had you begun you sentence with "some" then you could back track your way out of your incorrect mischaracterization. But you didn't.

When you said "threads like these" you are in fact including any and all Q related threads discussed across the web as well as the ones on ATS. Especially since you are making that statement inside of an ATS thread. Odd you would try to walk back that one.

And, yes, you were attempting to mischaracterize Q researchers as all thinking they were "gathering evidence" to be used in a legal preceding.

Your disdain for Q researchers is evident but you should attack the arguments and not the people with incorrect mischaracterizations.

originally posted by: Sabrechucker
DP..Rel decode on the way!

Now you know why Q will never post here or any other site

Only 8Chan LOL

a reply to: 1point92AU

No, you just misread and I pointed out where you did that and explained what I meant.

I don't even know what your point is in carrying on after I accepted that my words may not have been clear and re-stating what I actually meant.

One more interesting name on the Rhodes Scholar list...

wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: 1point92AU

No, you just misread and I pointed out where you did that and explained what I meant.

I don't even know what your point is in carrying on after I accepted that my words may not have been clear and re-stating what I actually meant.

You saying I misread your posts doesn't make it true. It's not an opinion. You did make incorrect mischaracterizations via absolute statements and when I pointed that out you attempted to back track out of your incorrect mischaracterizations.

My point was made clearly at the end of my last post. You should attack the research and not Q researchers. Clear enough a second time?

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: cherokeetroy

You wanted me to provide evidence to back up the significance of vibration to our existence so I did.

I didn't ask for that.

You made this claim.

Mantras like 'good vibrations ' are backed by scientific evidence

I asked for proof. What you provided was not proof.

Define "good vibrations" and explain how that relates to the type of vibrations that tesla was working with.

Vibrations resonate at different ranges of frequencies. Ranging from low to high. Slower frequencies are known as 'low vibe'. Faster frequencies are called 'high vibe ' or are otherwise known as 'good vibes. Your question about how this relates to the type of frequencies Tesla was working with doesn't make sense because*everything* is vibration.

a reply to: 1point92AU

I wasn't attacking the researchers but the idea, which came from drop #1287, where Q said "How do you introduce evidence into an investigation (legally)?", which some took to mean that Q needed anons to dig in order to introduce evidence, as an idea that does exist and one that the post I was replying to expressed.

You just flung the context out the window to sidetrack us into this conversation that really isn't going to go anywhere.

ATTENTION!!!!!

Can we please get back ON TOPIC and QUIT the bickering?!????!?!?

Thanks!

Do NOT reply to this post......

RE: theconservativetreehouse.com... l-1st/

If I'm reading the above article correctly, we should have confirmation this week that Rosenstein authorized Mueller to investigate Trump on "obstructing justice" in August 2017. Because when it came to Trump-Russia collusion, Mueller knew early on that there was no "there there".

a reply to: daskakik

I wasn't attacking the researchers but the idea, which came from drop #1287, where Q said "How do you introduce evidence into an investigation (legally)?", which some took to mean that Q needed anons to dig in order to introduce evidence, as an idea that does exist and one that the post I was replying to expressed.

You don't see that you are seriously flawed in your tactics here. You state yourself that "some" took it to mean something.
So you see it another way, some see it that way, and some see it some other way... so on and so forth.

There are differing opinions here, catch up dask.

Then you go to state that someone else sidetracked "us" into this conversation that really isn't going to go anywhere..
YOU of all people are the one getting sidetracked into meaningless and endless conversation? That is the most delusional thing I have seen slapped together by your keyboard yet..

originally posted by: 40CalTone
You state yourself that "some" took it to mean something.

I was accused of generalizing and saying "all" took it to mean the same thing. I never meant that and even stated that that was a ridiculous notion. That is why I said that the context was thrown out the window because the post I had replied to had expressed that that particular poster had taken it that way.

This is all meaningless and endless conversation until Q produces actual results.