SAUCE YOUR CLAIM.
>so we can do verification, but only just barely
Well done mental midgets, now keep it UP AND DO IT Q! C'mon, NO ONE is exempt unless you're compromised. DO YOU GET IT?
Find sauce for your claim. Anything will work fine. Could it be that you're full of shit?
>so yeah, full of shit
Usually I find that "word salad" are unable to point out specifically where their understanding stops and starts and therefore unable to parse a thing. It's a waste of time asking, because I say which parts are you having trouble with? And they go the whole thing, so then I say well, it's english so, can't help you with that, and they never learn a bit like they did when they first learned english.
So, which parts in particular are you having problems parsing?
Y u so lazy, even when being too lazy to read even. That's impressive dual layered faggotry.
Then why are you complaining to me that you are not able to understand me if you are not looking for help in understanding? I think you're being a dumbass.
Must confound for salads to annoy morons who have yet to filter: >>16542679
Hurry up, you do not need to advertise your idiocy to me any longer. I already am convinced.
Sauce for that claim too. I doubt that that would happen as you say.
ITfags is who you call to remind you how to turn it off and then on again.
1/60, with thousands of posts? Wow it's like clockfaggotry. I thought QR group hated clockfaggotry?
Remember this?
>'This is my argument for "It Is Q" Time stamps'
It's not that you're being too analytical, it's ignoring the specific way it has been done before, which is suspicious because you're STARTING with the assertion that it IS Q because of the analysis. We're way past the "who is this mysterious Q" because we've established it all before already and been through insecure tripcode situations. So actually Q would be more than capable of delta-0,FAKE Q WOULD NOTand that's the criteria we are selecting for, because none but real Q will do.