dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

Recently, there has been a whole slew of "Q proofs" that do neither. Whether the product of incomplete thinking or shills deliberating trying to water down Q-related ideas, they are not notable. To be notable means to be outstanding, e.g.:

simple / elegant
easily described in one sentence: "X is - related to Y (which shows Z)"
NOMMED, often by multiple anons

>>21966592

Anyone can analyze Q posts. If you think your analysis has value, suggest you include a one-sentence description of what it shows. That makes it easy for anons and bakers to decide whether notable.

>>21966708

You can post a clock in response to a Q post or anything else.

But a clock alone doesn't justify anything - it is merely descriptive.

TBH, clock posts would be a lot more useful if more narrowly focused on one topic at a time and describing the relationships shown and why they matter.

>>21966757

clock topic is a difficult one

if Q had not proposed the clock, no anon would be posting on it

it's anons' sincere interest in Q that led clockfags to explore this idea

not a clockfag, hard to evaluate

but have looked at both astrology and sacred geometry - makes sense to me that there can be ways to map events onto a figure such as a circle and see meaningful relationships, especially involving what in astrology would be called conjunctions and oppositions.

Wish Q HAD commented on the clock after introducing it. Since he didn't, we do the best we can - each baker decides whether to include clocks (or a given clock) in notables.