If Q had made even one specific and significant revelation or fulfilled prediction, you could cite it. That you cannot proves my point.
Won't vs
Can't.
I've done enough of it for bull-headed, rigid types addicted to attracting false negative errors by their obsession to avoid false positive errors.
At my age, I'm less and less motivated to try and teach pigs to sing. It only frustrates me and annoys the pig.
IF you are seriously interested in the truth vs your own biases, you'll ferret it out regardless of the bother and the cost.
It has happened and POSTED ALL OVER THE PLACE.
PEOPLE ARE SICK OF YOUR STUPIDITY ? IGNORANCE ? OR ARE YOU A TROLLLLLLLL ??????/
There are a number of them none are definitive which is exactly what they want. It's information for those that want to listen. Combined it shows a statistical near impossibility that he is anything other then what they claim.
If you're not willing to listen that is fine you don't have to.
I asked the same basic question on a different thread last night. I was given a list by Jocko of things that Q supposedly predicted, but when I started going through them meticulously, the first several were all bogus.
At that point Jocko admitted that they had never actually vetted any of the claims they had provided to me, as if that excused it. We had an amicable discussion, but it ended with me saying that the end result of the exercise was obviously further proof it's all a fraud.
A couple of ankle biters were chiming in that they believe Q no matter what. Who cares. If it's not legitimate, it needs to be questioned. If it can't stand up to questions, it needs to be discredited. And it has been, except to those that refuse to honestly analyze the information. And at this point they won't even debate anymore, because they're going to lose.
I can link that thread if needed, or you could just look at our histories. Thanks!