>>1570418

This answer confused me a little.

on 12/18

Question was: What happened on 12/07

Answer was: Clock started - 10 days

I think the answer needs to be clarified.

Q didn't say clock started 10 days ago (from 12/18)

To me, the answer reads as:

'On 12/07 the clock started minus 10 days' (11/27)

Like a cheeky math answer. Q was answering the anon's question BUT pointing, to the real answer'

I'm not entirely sure my theory on that is correct. However, I'm not entirely content with the answer offered in the graphic (yet).

If, indeed, I'm looking at this the wrong way, someone please clarify.

Much appreciated

>>1570634

>>1570659

Yep.

Also, I suppose I should have wait a little longer on asking that question, as it appears anon is seeing some double confirmations within the clock.

see >>1570355

>>1570824

THANK YOU

I see what you mean.

Also, glad I wasn't alone in that line of thinking, and that you at least tried it, to verify.

THANK YOU

>>1570866

>>1570944

Well, damn.

I was all content, and thinking 'I owe that anon a beer. Went for the extra credit question and showed the work.'

Now this… 'that version (actually) ends 11/11'

You evil bastard.

No sleep for me, or you, again tonight.

-_-