Replies

LOL!!

Now you're trying to get me into the weeds.

Sorry, but you lose.

Your cut and paste was from my post #272.

Look at the post itself. It is replying to your post #271.

Here's a verbatim cut and paste from your post #271.

Unlike many on this site the ‘centipedes,’ haunt 4Chan. They posted Q’s first predictions within hours of them appearing on /pol. As I’ve mentioned, the consensus was simple and to the point. If the predictions were fulfilled, the ‘pedes would conclude Q was real. If the predictions bombed, the ‘pedes would agree that Q was a LARP.

My comment on this was in post #272:

And then you go on and on about 4chan, as though that site is esoteric and only *you* have heard of it.

You know, because you put the word 'centipedes' in quotes, as though you were deigning to explain, since obviously, (as you said two or three lines later,

"A couple of feeble attempts have been made to revive Q on The_Donald. They’ve been shot down right out of the gate. The tech savvy generation doesn’t have a lot of time or patience for larpers, at least not re something this important. As someone else mentioned, Q is now considered a Boomer phenomenon. They believe boomers are more technologically gullible than they are. It would be very hard to argue otherwise."

You are thereby attempting to make this generational; which is why it is bilge about 4chan.

BUT, in this thread, in the very post that this is replying to, you end up by saying:

"That was pure bilge about me and 4Chan. I never even mentioned visiting the site. I said the centipedes at The_Donald monitor 4Chan/pol like hawks—which is true. I’m grateful for the ‘pedes. There’s so much I’d know little or nothing about if it weren’t for them; they’re a simply incredible resource."

You know, you could have said this earlier, while you were posting from the other forum, that you had been reading critiques, by the Centipedes on The_Donald, of Q. It would have been disingenuous, since Q mentioned other reasons for leaving 4chan, and indeed, has had denial of service / hacking type attacks against him even on 8chan, which are well known. Q himself went to 8chan because of other issues on 4chan; and had to form a private board even on 8chan when the Board Owner was compromised (Q retained control of the 2nd tripcode after the first was broken; further, there was even significance to the name chosen to be the keyword for the first tripcode).

-- but to bring it up *now* just sounds like a desperate expedient. You aren't related to Adam Schiff by any chance, are you?

(I know it's difficult for you to keep up with all the things you spin and have said. That's why you should just tell the truth.)

Now, in this post, you accuse me of lying, saying:

One: on the same link I posted there were several Q-believers. Overall—taking all 4 pp into account—it balanced out relatively well. You quoted from one of the skeptics, but there were a number of staunch defenders as well.

Right, because in your ORIGINAL POST (https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3624983/posts?page=418#418) you never mentioned them. I read the first page, found a lot of bilge, and reported it as such.

Since you didn't emphasize the "supporters" of Q till much later on, and you are not inclined to do anything more than ridicule them anyway, it is not significant.

Your dissimulation on this matter, is similar to that I uncovered and commented on within post http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3625922/posts?page=105#105 ...where you lightly pass off the fact that you had bragged about knowing who Q is, and then admitted in light of further reading, you were wrong.

If Q's having a prediction wrong discredits him for all time, what shall we say of you?