Anonymous ID: 0f9571 May 13, 2019, 7:50 p.m. No.6492939   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>6492894 (LB)

Thats exactly what I said. Reread: both are the same for the outcome to be true.

The opposite is an exclusive OR in which only one is true for the outcome to be true.

Anonymous ID: 0f9571 May 13, 2019, 7:57 p.m. No.6492998   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3022

>>6492969

The difference is that now we know both are clean, which is consistent with what

Q said in the first place. Q said it ambiguously and everyone assumed that it meant

they were both dirty. Neither is. At least, if RM is, then we get to throw out the exoneration.

 

Pretty safe to say Trump doesn't want that.

Anonymous ID: 0f9571 May 13, 2019, 8:01 p.m. No.6493028   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3056 >>3064

>>6493015

>and with all the "disinfo", key players can't be prosecuted for leaking

Q hasn't really "leaked" anything. It's been mostly pointing us toward

the information we already have. It's

pretty brilliant.

Anonymous ID: 0f9571 May 13, 2019, 8:02 p.m. No.6493041   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3062

>>6493022

I know you're not saying that. I am. And yes, we do know. As I noted, the only

people that still think RM is dirty want his report tossed. Take your pick. Trump

hired him for a reason. All that's left is for the stragglers to catch on.

Anonymous ID: 0f9571 May 13, 2019, 8:08 p.m. No.6493081   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>6493064

Oh, I don't disagree, anon. I don't doubt they will try something like that.

Watch what's been happening this whole time: they build up some "this

time we got him!" only for their hopes to get dashed time and again.

To think they'll stop before they're literally wiped from this earth would

be naive at best. They are the disease.

Anonymous ID: 0f9571 May 13, 2019, 8:12 p.m. No.6493116   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>6493056

>pretty much every part of the drops contain information about information

Yes, meta-data. Actually pretty powerful when combined with other meta-data.

That's how you infer patterns in data without observing the source directly.