[JockoManning]

The scientific truism about being addicted so extensively to avoiding a false positive error inexorably rendering you a virtually certain victim of false negative errors is likely to leave you plenty bloody if you continue to rigidly maintain such a fiercely narrow, rigid, hostile, negative stance.

You don't have to be foolish to fair-mindedly consider something. You write as though it is impossible for you to consider this topic fair-mindedly.

Dr Jordan Peterson (search youtube) notes that those who tend to be disagreeable WANT to win competitions.

Most of us are weary of p*ssing contests designed to show who has the longer manhood. We just want to collaboratively consider the evidence in a collegial atmosphere.

[Golden Eagle]

You write as though it is impossible for you to consider this topic fair-mindedly.

No Quix, or Quix-mate. I simply asked for any proof that this Q ever predicted anything in advance, with enough specificity, for it to have prepared anyone for an actual event, or prevented the event from actually happening.

I've asked this question multiple times, on multiple threads, and the answer is still no, he hasn't even actually predicted anything specific in advance. How could he, when he purposefully speaks in codes and riddles.

If you are interested in spending time reading and evaluating posts that have no value, other than in hindsight, then you are living in the past.