Qanon -The Storm

#4,076
#4,076
On September 27,2018, Q Warns of Red TSUNAMI that occurred 11-11-2018. How did Q Know this?
For a detailed explanation see this at 27.37 mark:


A Seismic Wave Just Shook The Earth — And Scientists Aren't Entirely Sure Why
these waves were “monochromatic,” consisting of one shape — what National Geographic described as “a clean zigzag” — repeated at regular intervals of 17 seconds.
Click to expand...

Q=17

s69fk2Lh.jpg


9oKxt7kh.jpg

POTUS and PUTIN Meeting 11.11 (Strategic Marker)
2396

Q!!mG7VJxZNCI 3 Nov 2018 - 2:02:18 PM

POTUS meeting PUTIN on 11.11
Now what are the odds of that?
Q

45 Days Until 11/11/18!
2288

Q!!mG7VJxZNCI 28 Sep 2018 - 12:01:44 AM

RED WAVE OR RED TSUNAMI? VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!
2287

Q!!mG7VJxZNCI 27 Sep 2018 - 11:56:59 PM
Justice K Confirmation > Rosenstein Resignation > FISA Declas > FEMA Alert > Red Wave
2286

Q!!mG7VJxZNCI 27 Sep 2018 - 11:47:55 PM

Justice K confirmation
Goodbye, Mr. Rosenstein
DECLAS
POTUS Alert-Test
RED OCTOBER?
Q
Click to expand...

every_vote_counts.jpg

>>3224486
RED OCTOBER>>>
MIDTERM ELECTIONS
RED WAVE OR RED TSUNAMI?
FIGHT!
FIGHT!
FIGHT!
Q
Click to expand...
>>3224714
MIDTERM ELECTIONS>>>
[Days Prior]
11.11
What a wonderful day!
Q
 
Last edited:
#4,080
#4,080
New: Title TBD
2546
Q!!mG7VJxZNCI3 Dec 2018 - 5:41:45 PM
Anonymous3 Dec 2018 - 5:37:53 PM
>>4134775

Okay. Is the plot moving forward? I think we all understand the characters and conflict at this point. Time for the plot twist? Declas, FINALLY?
>>4134817
The President of the United States initiated and confirmed the order when he stated "The Calm Before the Storm."
When was the statement made?
When did "Q" go active?
Watch the News.
Watch the FBI.
Watch the DOJ.
Q
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeD
#4,082
#4,082
Orange_Crush said:
Then what's your point in arguing that? I've gone back and looked again at the context and still don't know what you're trying to prove with it if your point isn't to in some way undermine Q's trustworthiness because it's being posted on 8chan, which is advertiser-supported.

It sounds amazingly like a wasted attack-the-man fallacy.
Click to expand...

NGV said it's on 8chan because it's open source. I'm saying there are other reasons why it would be there.
 
Last edited:
#4,083
#4,083
ajvol01 said:
New: Title TBD
2546
Q!!mG7VJxZNCI3 Dec 2018 - 5:41:45 PM
Anonymous3 Dec 2018 - 5:37:53 PM
>>4134775

Okay. Is the plot moving forward? I think we all understand the characters and conflict at this point. Time for the plot twist? Declas, FINALLY?
>>4134817
The President of the United States initiated and confirmed the order when he stated "The Calm Before the Storm."
When was the statement made?
When did "Q" go active?
Watch the News.
Watch the FBI.
Watch the DOJ.
Q
Click to expand...

I'll give this cat credit, he sure can say a lot without saying anything at all. Always promising a shiny trinket that never seems to materialize. Soon-lol z.
 
#4,084
#4,084
n_huffhines said:
NGV said said it's on 8chan because it's open source. I'm saying there are other reasons why it would be there.
Click to expand...

Yah. That's kind of my point. You come in here and crap on his conspiracy theory in favor of your own, using fallacious logic and acting like you're filling an intellectual vacuum.

n_huffhines said:
8chan has no reputation to protect and they like traffic because it = $. Q and 8chan are working together to put ******** time stamps on his posts. Then you go thru phase 2 of the $ scheme and watch Serial Brain (traffic = $) and buy his gold Trump coins, because Trump is our lord and savior according to the theory, and you can't resist a good trinket. That's likely the real conspiracy here.
Click to expand...
 
#4,087
#4,087
n_huffhines said:
What's fallacious about my logic, exactly?
Click to expand...
As mentioned before, your entire argument per Q and 8 chan is little more than attack-the-man. But that aside, as mentioned in my last post, your entire argument has wasted to nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

You asked why Q would post on 8-chan. Several were given. You then attempted to negate the answers given with your conspiracy theory, which is nothing more than a statement of your own ignorance disguised as suspicion and whatever your personal flavor of "likely" seems to be (which is--you guessed it--the appeal to personal credulity.)
 
#4,088
#4,088
Orange_Crush said:
As mentioned before, your entire argument per Q and 8 chan is little more than attack-the-man. But that aside, as mentioned in my last post, your entire argument has wasted to nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

You asked why Q would post on 8-chan. Several were given. You then attempted to negate the answers given with your conspiracy theory, which is nothing more than a statement of your own ignorance disguised as suspicion and whatever your personal flavor of "likely" seems to be (which is--you guessed it--the appeal to personal credulity.)
Click to expand...

Why are you so bothered that I counter-punched on 8chan? Are opposing opinions not allowed in here? There is no fallacious logic in thinking that a conspiracy of two unknown agents to generate some site traffic is more likely than a vast left-wing conspiracy to diddle kids and worship the devil. Oh yeah, and all shootings are false flags by the cabal, right? Cool. I'm illogical because I pointed out that the source and the platform have a $ incentive to create this hoax.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy
#4,089
#4,089
n_huffhines said:
Why are you so bothered that I counter-punched on 8chan? Are opposing opinions not allowed in here? There is no fallacious logic in thinking that a conspiracy of two unknown agents is more likely than a vast left-wing conspiracy to diddle kids and worship the devil. Oh yeah, and all shootings are false flags by the cabal, right? Cool. I'm illogical because I pointed out that the source and the platform have a $ incentive to create this hoax.
Click to expand...
An attack the man fallacy is to try to undermine a message by attacking the one who brings it instead of the message itself. By claiming that Q is less trustworthy b/c of the platform he posts on is exactly that. The irony is that you're posting on an internet message board that's supported by ad traffic. That was my original point. I'm not surprised you missed it.

Now, I realize that you claimed you didn't argue that Q is less trustworthy b/c of its platform, but that's EXACTLY what you did, so I suspect you did in fact realize the self-refuting nature of your fallacy after I alluded to it (else you wouldn't have denied doing what you'd obviously just done).

And nice edit. To answer your deleted question, if you'd pointed out any missed predictions by Q, it would not be an attack the man. It would actually be a legitimate critique on his argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and davethevol
#4,090
#4,090
Orange_Crush said:
An attack the man fallacy is to try to undermine a message by attacking the one who brings it instead of the message itself. By claiming that Q is less trustworthy b/c of the platform he posts on is exactly that. The irony is that you're posting on an internet message board that's supported by ad traffic. That was my original point. I'm not surprised you missed it.

Now, I realize that you claimed you didn't argue that Q is less trustworthy b/c of its platform, but that's EXACTLY what you did, so I suspect you did in fact realize the self-refuting nature of your fallacy after I alluded to it (else you wouldn't have denied doing what you'd obviously just done).
Click to expand...

First of all, I never said 8chan made him less trustworthy. Less trustworthy than who? He's not less trustworthy than any other anonymous person on the internet.

I'm saying there is a gainful reason for both parties to create a hoax. Pointing out that there is a conflict of interest is not an attack on the person involved. Get your panties out of your snatch.
 
#4,091
#4,091
n_huffhines said:
First of all, I never said 8chan made him less trustworthy. Less trustworthy than who? He's not less trustworthy than any other anonymous person on the internet.

I'm saying there is a gainful reason for both parties to create a hoax. Pointing out that there is a conflict of interest is not an attack on the person involved. Get your panties out of your snatch.
Click to expand...

That's an attack the man fallacy as opposed to debating Q's arguments.

My panties are fine. You asked why I'm so bothered by your counter-punches to the debate, yet act like this toward mine?

Your response to the true believers has been to ignore the proof they've given (timestamps) and try to wipe them away with the probability that the timestamps have been faked for profit. You've offered no evidence at all except your personal credulity, yet argue with me about the fact that I've pointed out your rebuttals have been fallacious arguments.

If you have problems when your arguments are critiqued, form better arguments.

Toodles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and ajvol01
#4,092
#4,092
Orange_Crush said:
That's an attack the man fallacy as opposed to debating Q's arguments.

My panties are fine. You asked why I'm so bothered by your counter-punches to the debate, yet act like this toward mine?

Your response to the true believers has been to ignore the proof they've given (timestamps) and try to wipe them away with the probability that the timestamps have been faked for profit. You've offered no evidence at all except your personal credulity, yet argue with me about the fact that I've pointed out your rebuttals have been fallacious arguments.

If you have problems when your arguments are critiqued, form better arguments.

Toodles.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm not on my A game, but what do you think is more likely? A conspiracy of two unknowns as described by me, or a vast left wing conspiracy as described (and supported/discredited) by qanon?

Please, please, please answer.
 
#4,093
#4,093
n_huffhines said:
Maybe I'm not on my A game, but what do you think is more likely? A conspiracy of two unknowns as described by me, or a vast left wing conspiracy as described qanon?

Please, please, please answer.
Click to expand...

Interesting. You still trying to deny fallacious arguments by using fallacious arguments?

I've professed myself multiple times in here a devout agnostic on QAnon, as I admit my ignorance on too much going on behind the scenes. Because of my ignorance, I don't form any of my opinions on some made up "likelihood". How will you or I come up with any trustworthy likelihood on that with so much ignorance of the details?

Time will tell. Or not. In any case, I don't claim to be in a position to have a trustworthy opinion on the matter, much less argue that my opinion would be better than someone else's. Much less troll a thread on a subject I disbelieved without such ability to argue an uninformed opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and ajvol01
#4,095
#4,095
Me: Hey OC, who do you think is more likely to be our OC next year?

OC: [4 paragraph response about why he can't answer]
 
#4,098
#4,098
Orange_Crush said:
Kind of a cat move not to respond to me but cry about me being consistent. Oh well.
Click to expand...

Nobody asked you for a trustworthy opinion. Nobody said you claimed to have a trustworthy opinion, yet upon those grounds you avoided answering. Now you are attacking my character because I didn't quote you? Who's the troll?
 
Last edited:
#4,099
#4,099
n_huffhines said:
Nobody asked you for a trustworthy opinion. Nobody said you claimed to have a trustworthy opinion, yet upon those grounds you avoided answering. Now you are attacking my character because I didn't quote you? Who's the troll?
Click to expand...
You are.

You're just having problems dealing with the fact that once all of your fallacies were stopped away, your argument became nothing more than Ron Burgundy saying, "I don't believe you."
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#4,100
#4,100
Orange_Crush said:
You are.

You're just having problems dealing with the fact that once all of your fallacies were stopped away, your argument became nothing more than Ron Burgundy saying, "I don't believe you."
Click to expand...

More insults!

There is a little more substance to what I said, which is why you won't answer my very simple question.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top