As Diogenesis (one of my very favorite posters here) appears to indicate in the image they posted above, some must just see Q as a rallying point for us to stoke the passions. I just don’t agree, considering that it very likely could be an adversary of some sort.
If it wants my support, it will have to earn it, starting with building trust. And right now it looks like the last thing I would be willing to trust, especially since its whole existence seems to be built on a false pretense of actually being prophetic in any way, which it hasn’t truly proven to be. T
he core analogy appears to be throwing a bunch of crap up against the wall, and seeing if some of it might have stuck, when viewed after the fact. With all respect to my few friends that are still supporting it.
Good points. I’d actually be thrilled to believe in Q. All I ask is something more than a photo of a plane window, or a prediction that fails to materialize.
The insults get old, too. People who are spreading the truth do just that: they spread the truth. People propping up a hoax go straight to the insults. I’ve seen the same pattern often—as with global warming, for instance. Rather than polite debate, they label anyone who disagrees a deniar, and try to get their funding cut.
“If it wants my support, it will have to earn it, starting with building trust.
Pretty sure “it” doesn’t even know you exist, let alone wanting your support.
Probably could care less about you personally, given his/her mission.
“It” is what “it” is.
I don’t know if it is true or false. It certainly fits into my world view about Cankles and Zero and is fun reading. Time will tell.
If you didn’t care, you wouldn’t be playing the troll.
Play away. Perfectly fine by me.
Every great story needs an antagonist.
Best.
I agree. For example Jeff Sessions is recused. Yet Q wants us to trust Sessions that he's doing something.
In that scenario, Q would be an adversary.
Can I be your friend?
You're a clever chap. I like clever chaps.
ThankQ