Who is #Qanon? (really interesting 19:30 video)

You ignore every piece of argument, discussion, analysis, explanation. In short, you have already proved you are incompetent to discuss these matters. It is you who STARTED with ad homs throughout. I only added some observations AFTER you had already provided us with so much evidence of your nuttiness.

You have a fertile imagination but far too little ability to analyze, reason, argue with intelligence

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

You just make the wild assertions, sounding like some paranoid ranting fabulist.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

You are a good example of how the internet has inspired the worst thinkers among us

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Yet again, you demonstrate your pathetic inability to analyze, reason, to THINK.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

It is you who are immensely ignorant. As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Your brain is pathetic. You really do have the mind of a parrot.

You don’t understand argumentation in the slightest degree.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

you are incompetent to discuss these matters so much evidence of your nuttiness.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I focused upon the SUBSTANCE of the issues throughout. It is you who proved incapable of reasoned discussion. It is you who resorted to ad homs from the beginning and at every stage. It is you who SITLL has provided zero intelligent discussion of anything on this thread.

You really do have the mind of a parrot.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

has provided zero intelligent discussion

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I was giving my CONCLUSIONS after much observation of your pitiful debating technique.

I was not using any ad homs to avoid substance and analysis, as you continually do.

It is you who constantly fail to analyze substance.

Your mind is a ranting raving babble of confusion.

Your mind is a ranting raving babble of confusion.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

This is fun. I like enabling you to prove to everyone that you really are a parrot.

Polly want a cracker?

HEEERREEEs..... EDZO4!!

you really are a parrot.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

So edzo4, the silly troll who admitted trolling critics throughout this thread, is now trying to complain about ad homs. Just for fun, here is the "record" of your vile and abusive trolling on this thread. You have indulged almost entirely in ad homs yourself, rarely bothering to engage in any substantive analysis or answer the many points of evidence and argument brought to your attention.

Yes, my "ad hom" CONCLUSIONS after witnessing your performances on this and several other threads, not to mention your DOZENS of angry ranting malicious FReepmails in my inbox, are that you are (1) incredibly ignorant, (2) remarkably stupid, (3) narrow minded, (4) malicious, (5) dishonest, (6) incompetent, and (7) quite unintentionally funny! Thanks for the entertainment.

EDZO4 in action on this thread (all real life quotes from edzo4 on the thread above):

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

who cares, it’s all your posts you already know all the reatarded crap you post, it is for others to click on see what a weak troll and view how ridiculous you are for themselves, like Shakespeare said “ the lady doth protest too much, me thinks”

could the loser have a more appropriate name based on all the troll crap they post, LOL

When Enchante and Fantasywriter first met. LOL {edzo4 posts idiotic cartoon}

omg LOLOLOL do a reverse image search on that picture look at my google results BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA {edzo4 posts idiotic ugly photo to troll another FReeper}

it’s just a coincidence North Korea did a complete 180 on their policy of the last 60 years and gave up the leverage of the US hostages prior to the summit cause of nothing, and are you really so dumb that you think those complicit in the plan to arm north korea were unaware of their own plan? Pot calling the kettle black much you stupid troll.

I need a projector you take up my whole laptop screen, LOL

That’s cause you’re an Idiot.

who do you think sounds more desperate the media saying Trump had nothing to do with North Korea or the trolls here trying to claim Q didn’t tell us about North Korea since November of 2017.

I think it’s tied but the media and the trolls certainly agree about Q and I know as a Trump conservative on free republic whenever I want to validate my conclusions I look to those bastions of conservative truths the NY Times And the Washington Post LOL

LoL Ok troll I seriously don’t know what is more fun, proving you wrong and a liar or having the opportunity to piss off more trolls while simultaneously showing fellow freepers about Q and allowing them to make up their own minds and not take some stupid trolls that spews the NY times and washington post talking points word for it.

These lame trolls trying to perse-q-ute you LoL.

Hahahahaha can you be more lame. Sorry pretending it doesn’t exist doesn’t disprove it.

It’s a month ahead of the news cycle you stupid troll, but again thank you for allowing me to show other freepers how biased you are and how you and the other trolls merely spew taking points of the msm like the NY times and Washington post. While the freepers are exposed to the actual info and allowed to make up their own minds. Thanks again

Try harder

those with a high enough iQ will understand. LoL

Quint tells off the trolls can’t admit when they are wrong

So your proof that you aren’t a troll is the opinion of a different troll on a different board. LOL ok

you're wrong

I don’t care it’s just to troll you losers, and get a reaction. Mission accomplished!

so whatever we found is true how we were led there is false hahahahahahaha You should be called fantasy writer do you read your own stupid shit before you post it. LoL

Gfys you have been given proofs on every q thread you’ve trolled since February. Go Google it you lazy loser I would suggest the NYC false flag bombing that was presented by giving the alleged perp fireworks. But you won’t read it anyways and refuse to accept that it exists so what is the point

Liar liar pants on fire.

LoL so I see you were still to lazy to Google the NYC bombing. I guess that is why you don’t believe in new you are just too effing fat and lazy to put in the effort not to mention you had proofs from Q all along, sad you are too dumb too realize it. I wonder how the Ryan retire rumor started. You Dolt

Like I said thanks again for the opportunity to prove you a liar and to allow fellow freepers to make up their own minds.

hahahahaha

you are so effing pitiful

sorry you being ignorant of the fact that it started with Q doesn’t make it untrue, nice try though scumbag

spin spin spin, you being ignorant of where it started doesn’t change where it started, keep trying though you’re very convincing, NOT!

I see you lazy ass still hasn’t looked at the NYC foiled bombing or id you look and you’re pretending you didn’t cause that also proves you wrong?

does it hurt to be as stupid as you are? or do you just not realize it?

If only an ignorant trolls opinion mattered to me, too bad it doesn’t..

‘you’ve never heard of undercover agents replacing explosives with something else?’

Here’s the difference. You’ve cited two public reports. When the FBI, or whatever agency, publicizes what they did, then you pretty reliably know it happened.

In the Boston case there is no evidence that anything was involved beyond faulty bomb making. Having Q make a claim is not evidence. Q is an anonymous source that posts on 8chan. That doesn’t come even close to giving Q the bona fides to speak for LE.

Quoting Q does not prove Q. That’s like quoting the Koran to prove Islam. All either of those exercises prove is that the source agrees with itself.

Just in case there’s any ambiguity: I don’t believe Q’s mention of Concord is relevant at all. I don’t even know if the Q-believers will cite it. I was just having fun.

oops you missed try again

1274
Apr 25 2018 20:24:34
TRY HARDER
Q