Posted on 01/24/2018 8:02:36 PM PST by ransomnote
The following content is from an anon (anonymous poster on the same type of boars that Q uses) that preceded Q, via Brenden Dilley, Congressional candidate. The content is compatible with the information I've reviewed so far but offers greater level of detail and key clarification.
Well here is the FR thread I was referring to. Look at the parent post and the graphic. Does it not contain the text you referenced, and does it not show a date of 1/23/18?
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3625424/posts
Why should I believe this information was posted in December as you claimed?
Oh, that is so sweet. Now, I love you even more.
An easy mistake to make. The original post exists, and it was dropped on Dec 14, six days after the alleged meeting took place.
Tell me this, before you see it, if in fact you ever do. Would that make you reconsider your opinion? I mean, even if it was dropped in January, wouldn't that give you pause? Who else was telling us about any secret meetings? Who else could possible know other than somebody attached to a very high level of intelligence of proximity to the President?
Seriously. Doesn't that say something?
In the meantime, I'm looking for a post with the original Q drop, but I really, really suck at research. No lie. I really do. My gung fu style is yappin.
I wish somebody would have mercy on me and post you the link. But I also think what you just posted should be sufficient to make my point.
I’m very much old enough to remember the pre-internet days.
Even back then, we could back up our assertions in an argument by referring our opponents to published news reports, history books, science journals, text books, legal decisions, encyclopedias, maps, mathematical calculations, demonstrations, tests, reference books and manuals of all sorts, and even common knowledge, vouched for by group acknowledgement.
Posting a link is a whole lot easier than how we used to do it.
Yeah and nobody dies like bagster described either. Unfortunately, bagster just told me he doesn't know how to do links. So he has a tough time getting anyone to believe him. Just the way it is.
It's what I do. It's what many people do.
Not a difficult concept.
If you want referrals, I refer you to the numerous Q threads that are on FreeRepublic.com. That's how I did it. mMany links to the sources you require can be found there. Get to work, young padwan.
There. My secret is out. I do what I can, and that is mostly typing with a 600x magnified screen.
Happy now?
Anyway. I'm perfectly happy to make my arguments with purely the written word, my well formed opinion, and my big brain. I believe I can win any argument I choose to engage in.
My gung fu is that lethal.
REPOST:
Unfortunately, bagster just told me he doesn’t know how to do links. So he has a tough time getting anyone to believe him. Just the way it is.
Not brag. Science.
Is there a point attached? You interrupt the flow of the conversation with your Q-like meanderings.
If I had the gung fu, I would respond to you with that Riddler meme. Pretend that I did.
Until you know how to post links, to display the results of your research, you will find few if any that trust your research. Your claim that Q knew who I was turned out to be even more baseless and disappointing. So far you're batting close to .000
Despite that admitted gap in my gung fu mastery, I have never lost an argument on the internet. I have conceded points when proven wrong, but that in itself, makes a man's overall gung fu stronger. You will never defeat me, goodman. I advise caution.
you will find few if any that trust your research.
My research is not the point. I already told you, I rely mostly on the research of the more competent. Just as you do. What is at issue here is my ability to take that research and make a convincing argument, baffling my opponent at every turn. Just as I am doing right now. Your mind lives in a restricted box and that is why you are an unworthy opponent. My mind is vast and can go to places you have never even heard of. It is how I can accept the possibility of Q.
Which reminds me. You never responded to my last question to you about Q. Did you think about what I said? This is a test of your intellectual honesty and will give me another clue in the puzzlement that is you. I like to know my opponent.
Your claim that Q knew who I was...
Oh my. You were actually serious when you said that? I thought you might have a sense of humor and were being ironical. At the time, I thought you did pretty good with that one. But you were serious. You thought I was really saying that Q was actually watching you and was under your bed or in your closet. Interesting. And another clue to solve you. No sense of humor. Check.
you're batting close to .000
Quite the opposite, grasshoppa.
:)
p.s. Where's Windflier? You better make the tag.
I seriously hope you don't think I read past that. It also explains your endless devotion to your imaginary friend Q. You guys own the world don't you LOL. Don't expect another response. Thanks!
:)
Of course you did. And you're reading this too.
It also explains your endless devotion to your imaginary friend Q.
"Devotion" is not a word I would use to describe "the Q thing." But, whatever.
You guys own the world don't you LOL
I share ownership with others as I see fit. I am benevolent. Also, I was wrong. You DO have a sense of humor. The LOL proves it.
Don't expect another response.
I accept your surrender. To be honest, I expected more.
What about my Q question? Scroll up to refresh yourself.
One down. One to go. Windflier, you're up.
https://goo.gl/images/w6XUx7
Or this.
https://goo.gl/images/aMzdJo
I thought some more about this comment of yours. I find it very revealing. I think there is more to your "anti Q" behavior than healthy skepticism. I believe that there is some psychology which may even you are not aware of going on here. I think you see this "Q controversy" as somehow a sort of power struggle of a type. Maybe between your world view and another. Maybe something else. But to you, it's personal.
I will ponder this more. I'm intrigued.
Bagster
Student of human behavior.
(with that, I bid you adieu)
You could have learned to post links in the time it took you to type all that.
Is that the Irish Guard? That stirs the auld blood. Are you a part of that? What does it have to do with German?
Haha. You're right.
But before you let that thought become settled science, let me add something else to the stew.
Besides my being a most brilliant rhetorical genius, student of human behavior and accomplished bullshitter, I am also maybe one of the laziest men on this earth we both live on.
So there is that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.