>>544304

>This destabilizes certain minds to become suspectable to outside control.

Why has Q used "suspectable" instead of "susceptible" which is the word that one would employ contextually in that sentence? It's what I saw on first reading because contextually that's what the brain thinks it should read.

Is it a deliberate malapropism to get round bot sniffers? I know they don't like metaphor and analogy which is why poetry throws them - like saying: "methinks he doth protest too much" to imply guilt. And three letter agencies often use misspelling (chidlren, for instance) to confuse search engines, I guess.

Also, misspelling could throw off censorship algorithms. Should we be employing such devices to get round Twatter/FB censorship?

>>546755

>>>546654

>

>An innocent person who is able to be turned into a Suspect = Suspectible

>

>"Hosuesitter/STeve Martin: "thx to your lies I punched a TOTALLY INNOCENT HUNGARIAN!!"

I find that a grammatical stretch. If that was my intended meaning I would have written along these lines:

This destabilizes certain minds to become suspectable to outside controlLERS.

Imo, "suspectable" (capable of being suspected) requires a concrete entity to do the suspecting. "Outside control" is abstract.

Would you say, for instance, "outside control suspected the man of murder." I certainly wouldn't. However, I might say: "outside controllers suspected the man of murder."

Maybe it's the difference between American English and English-English usage - I am only familiar with the latter - and tbh I wouldn't use the word "suspectable" at all.

Dismiss if it leads nowhere…

If we are constantly divided on this board, what hope do we have in showing a united front off-board? Q constantly reminds us that “they” want us divided and that we MUST unite if we are to take back the power thyat rightfully belongs to we, the people. But we can’t unite around thin air nor around mutually exclusive beliefs/opinions.

Therefore, instead of posting about those opinions/beliefs on which we differ, should we not agree on some foundational principles on which we all can agree?

For instance; we can all unite in support of the Constitution; one nation under God; inalienable rights granted by our Creator. Note: it is important that we acknowledge a Creator if we are to guard our inalienable rights since they are granted by our Creator. Atheism undermines inalienable rights and allows the argument that rights are granted by governments not by our Creator. And if rights are granted by governments they can equally be withdrawn by governments.

Perhaps a writerfag could draw up a statement of principles around which we all can unite and then support, promote and meme off-board.