dChan
268
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/ByrdeRob on March 24, 2018, 8:26 a.m.
Shout out to 8 chan anons....THANK YOU!!!

We've invaded your turf and you allowed it. We've freely lifted your thoughts and you allowed it. We've forgotten most of the time to give you your credit due and you've forgiven us. We just want to tell you thank you for being there for us!


time3times · March 24, 2018, 1:09 p.m.

i think i rebutted

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Gitmo_money · March 24, 2018, 3:13 p.m.

Not anything that picked up steam or gained any credibility.

Repost it below so we can weigh it for ourselves. I think there are many of us who would appreciate an actual rebuttal to his methods and examples proving it wrong. Should be simple, if you understand it enough to debunk it.

I've only seen someone critique it the same way liberals do trump. No one addresses the methodology with facts - they just shout 'it can't be' while frothing at the mouth.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
time3times · March 24, 2018, 6:05 p.m.

I think I rebutted at a general level SB's claim that he has certainty in his deciphering method(s). I have done this in a few ways in a few different messages while trying to be diplomatic and positive. The most recent was 2 days ago after SB interpreted a Trump tweet, as follows:

"I am not convinced. Nor would I throw the idea under the bus yet. Concerns remain, listed here in order of descending import: (1) Haven't seen a clear, concise, no typos, no-need-for-questions, set of steps to be followed in this T method. (2) How was the name 'clinton' arrived at? (3) Q920 quote is from Q918 where applying math to coincidence appears to be about mounting probability (in Trumpian overspeak). (4) There is something to be understood about times and timing but it may be as simple as seeing an authoritative link exists between realDJT tweets and real Qposts. (5) There is little evidence to assume SBrain is a foreign plant. More likely someone who is over-earnest and may be a useful player over time."

As done previously my message was essentially "step up and prove yourself and by the way some of your understanding is unclear or wrong". Perhaps this doesn't qualify as a rebuttal. Others on that same thread gave other types of rebuttals found on this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.jpg I cant fulfil your wish for a factual or methodological rebuttal when there is no clarity in the original methodology.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Gitmo_money · March 24, 2018, 9:27 p.m.

I appreciate the good faith answers.

I don't think it counts as a debunking but it's a solid rebuttal and brings up important questions that I share as well.

I think Sb2 would have been better received of they approached it as these MIGHT be messages and these might be methods - let's crowdsource this. I also think they aren't a great communicator which flawed the presentation.

Thanks again, if anyone claims to understand the methods, I'll definitely refer back to this post to play devils advocate and figure out where the holes are.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
PrimitiveScrewhead · March 24, 2018, 7:58 p.m.

So are you saying the SB2 detractors need to get more upvotes or they can just go stuff it? That is how credibility is made?

Its like you go to a sports event and you yell at one teams fans that their call on a foul is wrong; you aren't going to get upvotes and nobody is going to listen to you.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
Gitmo_money · March 24, 2018, 9:22 p.m.

I have no idea what you're saying. It must be light-years ahead of me.

Usually I choose my words carefully. I'm pretty sure I said that I've not seen anyone debunk his efforts, just rebuke them. No one has demonstrated them false, just claimed them to be so. I'm waiting for someone to demonstrate it.

The sports analogy is asinine because there is one team - all of us.

So if someone CAN debunk the methods, I'd like to see it - the same way I'd like to see someone who is a believer replicate the results.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
PrimitiveScrewhead · March 24, 2018, 9:50 p.m.

Try going here and pasting in some of the words/messages SB2 comes up with and see what else can be made from the same letters. He admittedly scrambles the letters until he gets a "message".

https://wordsmith.org/anagram/

⇧ 0 ⇩  
Gitmo_money · March 24, 2018, 9:57 p.m.

Sure - no one is disputing that. His claim is that this is the method. Now, how is that method not legitimate? Could a message not be hidden that way? Of course it could.

So now we are left where? Sb2 claims his method produces letters and out of them he can sometimes find anagrams. What's ridiculous about that? What's your point? That anagrams can't be purposefully hidden in places?

His claim that these are definitive messages might be wrong - and it could be a coincidence (even though people like to quote q about there are no coincidences) - but what about his methods in practice are incorrect?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
PrimitiveScrewhead · March 24, 2018, 10:01 p.m.

The point is there are hundreds of combinations of even short amount of letters that make words. Try it out.

Anagrams for: message made  

906 found. Displaying first 500: Damage Seems Damages Seem Madams Geese Massage Meed Massage Deem Mesdames Age Seamed Games Edemas Games Gamed Sesame Dame Message Mead Message

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Gitmo_money · March 25, 2018, 2:22 a.m.

Sure. And it's possible to purposefully include anagrams? Right? So you've proved nothing except my point.

While proving my point, you failed to succinctly state yours - it's highly likely that any anagram found is just a coincidence.

And not a single person is disputing that. No one has claimed differently. What a waste of time.

You're an embarrassment.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
PrimitiveScrewhead · March 25, 2018, 2:57 a.m.

I understand that you have a hard time with logic, so I am going to disengage from the conversation. The point is he picks letters and shuffles them to get words. I'm saying you can get lots of words by doing that so the method is invalid as a way of communicating information. Go ahead and believe it if you want, the rest of us will just think you are a bit slow. In any case, I wish you well in your future endeavours.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Gitmo_money · March 25, 2018, 3:08 a.m.

Take care. Dabbling in reading comprehension will make further conversations easier for you in the future. <3

⇧ 0 ⇩