>>1432870

re: two popes

[Pope] = Francis

[P] = Benedict

?

(since benedict is still alive, and his resignation only kicks in at death?)

>>1433175

but that's what i mean, though.

Q doesn't err, and i don't think i've seen Q refer to one person with two labels before.

it seems as if the distinction is intentional.

to say:

[Pope] will be having a terrible May

and also

P = C

is to say that [Pope] =/= P

and therefore

[Pope] =/= C

it also seems clear that [Pope] = Francis, because Francis is 'retiring' in May.

(not trying to be difficult - just getting my thoughts out there. sometimes when we say things together, it jogs ideas and things click. peace.)

>>1433428

>>1433458

yes - exactly.

if he wanted P = [Pope], then in response to 884799, it would have been [P] will have a terrible May.

Q did NOT say P = Pope, but clarified in a response that P and Pope were two different people.

>>1433488

we're on the same page.

i got six different (low energy) shills yesterday when i tried to talk about P/pope/C.

>>1433518

looks close, but shouldn't the 'a' be directly below the 'r'?

agree on 'rth', though.

>>1433515

it's worth considering. Q says palestinian once, references it thrice, and never says palestine.

P might = Palestine.

here's another thought, boyos, since the anti-P/Pope/C shills are so pissy. every consider that the JIDF and Vatican might be in league, just to employ a double-shift-whatcha-doin-rabbi tactic?

think about it.