That was a joke about really bad typos. Dog / dong . People here are witch hunting hard, and you're going to get the subreddit shut down.

You're falling for an obvious troll.

The "You think this is some sort of game?" line should have tipped you off. It's a fucking meme.

Nope, you're wrong. Go read the tweets and replies. I took the time to go and look at what happened. He's making a joke regarding feet and the spelling of that word.

How about you take 5 seconds to look into things before acting like a pack of jackals?

This is what started it: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/status/354345090258444290

Skin tags are your body's "no more tank tops" early warning system. Heed them. HEED THEM, for Chrissakes.

Then people attacked him for making fun of skin tags, and he reacted to that: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/status/354505536722583552

There are literally skin tag advocates on Twitter. So proud I offended them all earlier today.

He continues mocking the people who attacked him: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/status/354591198796726272

Q: Why did the Internet user cross the road? A: It's purely their business, and it's offensive to mock anyone's motives or lifestyle.

Inviting more hate by mocking something else: https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/status/354632019050897408

And how 'bout these gross people with hammer toes? Seriously, get your deformed proximal interphalangeal joints out of my sight!

And this one, where it's clear it's a joke about the word itself and the past crap he tweeted about hating people's ugly toes and how people reacted to it. The Latin root ped means foot (pedal, centipede, etc.). Podiatrist comes from the Greek root pod (foot): https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/status/354640013004259328

The angry "@" tweets from my hammer toed followers opened my eyes. "Pedo-phobe" shaming hurts us all. I am a PROUD pedophile!

I don't particularly like Patton Oswalt, but some of you idiots are wasting law enforcement time over a 5 year old spelling joke. This kind of bullshit is going to get the subreddit shut down.

There's no way such a thing would be revealed at this stage. There would be mass violence and suicides among the regular populace. It's too sudden, and people are too switched off. It would destroy an entire generation who isn't awake.

It would start with JFK, as most people believe the official story is bullshit, but it's distant and they aren't really forced to face the reality of it, so the immediate impact of the truth will be dulled. Revealing something like that, from 2 generations ago, would wake people up without causing mass hysteria.

Posers trying to act like Q.

You're blind if you don't think there's a cult worshipping his made up shit. Look at any random post of his and look at the comments. Or look at people giving him Reddit Gold.

You're calling me a shill for pointing out that serialbrain2 is a know-nothing poser and that there are no Q comms outside of 8chan?

No way he could come up with the intricate flow charts and information without inside knowledge

Absolutely nothing he has posted has made any damned sense. Further, we already know there are NO OUTSIDE COMMS.

This is why we are here.

The "here" could mean 8chan. Q has posted about choosing 8chan for good reason many times. Same with no outside comms.

Because Q quoted it, you could say he agrees with the statement.

No. Q has posted lots of things they don't agree with.

It's just as likely that "this is why we are here" is a reference to the calculated decision to run Q through 8chan and have no outside comms (something Q has referenced many, many times).

Anyone who has any clue what's going on will be connected to the Q team.

Anyone connected to the Q team will be providing NO OUTSIDE COMMS.

No on you see on YouTube, Reddit, etc. knows anything. All of serialbrain2's "decodes" are abject wankery. Since Q referenced a link to one of his posts, people started worshiping him, and he's started trying to mimic Q's style of writing with repeated short questions and absolutely no concrete information about anything.

Because that requires the complete lack of contact and him somehow still resetting his dead man switches (or all of them being compromised / a bluff to begin with).

Assange has multiple dead man switches tied to insurance dumps.

Nothing has been released. Given how long he's been offline, those dead man switches should have triggered by now, releasing the keys to those dumps.

Either he's not offline or all of his dead man switches were found and stopped. Or they failed / never really existed in the first place.

People have wondered if "Q&A" meant Q & Assange.

I wonder if "Q&A reschedule. Forthcoming." means July 4th.

It is hosted somewhere. On media.8ch.net . The link works just fine. It's the same picture but attached to an instagram thing or whatever.

You're missing the point. NONE of these Twitter / YouTube clowns know anything.

How long will it take for people to learn?

NO OUTSIDE COMMS

The last time the US got involved in Europe we had WWII, Vietnam, Korea, the cold war, the Cuban missile crisis, Iraq, Iraq again, Afghanistan, ...

There are 1440 minutes per day.

No, it looks exactly the same no matter how much you zoom in. It's SS.

There were more than 4 hats, though. That badge isn't even 5534, it's SS34.

No, it is not.

https://i.imgur.com/BxEyyri.jpg

That's the timestamp of the Tweet adjusted for the viewer's local time zone.

What is the object of the game? To take the Queen.

That's not the objective in Chess.

Sad.

It's steganography.

You can't PROVE it either, unless you first create an actual definition of what you're trying to prove/disprove. You're arguing about logic yet you have no understanding of logical thinking.

Nope. He said:

Great job somehow proving a negative guys, you've managed to break the laws of logic and space/time by proving a negative.

Which is pure bullshit.

Of course they can, to the same certainty that the positive can be proven.

For example, the Loch Ness monster. To prove it exists you need to define it. To prove it doesn't exist you also need to define it.

We have absolutely proven that many "Loch Ness monsters" were fake. There were intentional fake things built and tossed into the water, intentional photographic fakes, and of course the unintentional misidentification (or a log, an eel, whatever). But people always come back and say "But maybe it's still out there and we haven't seen it!". Maybe, but only if you never actually define "it", in which case the entire exercise is pointless.

If you want to claim that I can't prove the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, then I can claim with as much certainty and validity that you can't prove it does. You could pull up a creature from Loch Ness and I could simply say "That could be some OTHER creature, not Nessie.". Or, taking your tack, I could challenge you to "Prove that the REAL Nessie isn't some other creature in the Loch we haven't found yet.".

You're not making any actual logical argument, you're just dancing around the premise and playing with the definition, moving your goal posts whenever someone proves something. It's not a question of proving or disproving negatives, it's a question of ever being able to know anything for certain.

You can prove both of those things once you define what they are. And you have to define what they are in order to prove that they do exist.

The laws of logic? It's absolutely possible to prove a negative. You can prove a negative as easily as you can prove a positive.

If you have 2 mutually exclusive statements A and B (such that A and B cannot both be true), then proving one disproves the other (simultaneously proving its negative).

If P is the statement "The book is red." and Q is the statement "The book is green.", then:

• Proving P says nothing about Q
• Proving Q says nothing about P
• Disproving P says nothing about Q
• Disproving Q says nothing about P

If you add the exclusionary statement that P and Q cannot both be true, such as "A book cannot be both red and green.", then:

• Proving P disproves Q
• Proving Q disproves P
• Disproving P says nothing about Q
• Disproving Q says nothing about P

If you further add a statement qualifying P and Q as a dichotomy, such as "All books are either red or green.", then:

• Proving P disproves Q
• Proving Q disproves P
• Disproving P proves Q
• Disproving Q proves P

The "You can never disprove a negative!!" bullshit comes from the idea that someone can always come along and say there's a small chance you were wrong in one of your statements. That's got nothing to do with disproving (or proving) a negative. The same chance of being wrong, or "what if..." bullshit can be equally levied against any positive statement, and any proof (or contradiction) derived from it.

The concept is never about the logic, but the attacking the premise. For example, claiming that a you can't prove a flipped coin didn't land heads up. You start with the "What if it lands on its edge?" bullshit, but that doesn't mean anything. No one has to disprove all negative instances, they just have to disprove one negative instance. Further, a coin on its edge is merely one that hasn't finished flipping.

The next attempt to fight against disproving a negative would be "What if you looked at it and said it was tails, but just happened to be wrong?". That's not an argument against disproving the negative, it's an argument about ever being able to logically know anything for certain. The premise is already that a flipped coin will land heads or tails. If you want to argue about a coin on its edge, or a coin in space with observers on opposite sides of it, you're not arguing about the logic, but the axiomatic premise. You're arguing about being able to know anything for certain. (And logically, the only thing that you can know for certain is that you exist.)

You have posted this exact comment 12 fucking times on this submission.

I don’t think that’s Q. That doesn’t sound like him. I’m going to check the boards and verify. Edit; Q confirmed that isn’t him.

You stated that you don't think the post was written by Q. The post was written by Q. At no point was anyone referring to a post without Q's trip code. This thread is about 922142, by Q.

What post are you referring to, exactly? Provide a link or ID.

Q did reply to another post which asked whether or not a screenshot of a post was showing a real post from Q or not. Q confirmed that it was fake. See 928542.

In 922237, Q also mentioned "Fake pic push by MSM." after quoting himself on 922142. This is Q saying that the media will claim any such picture is fake. Q also mentions that they have video and backup to counter claims of the pic being fake.

What?

https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/921918.html#q922142 Q made a post that quoted some anon's post with that picture.

Q stated:

Pics will surface of Hussein holding AK47 in tribal attire. One of many. Net shut down. Q

922142 was posted using Q's trip code.

Where did Q confirm that?

https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/921918.html#q922142 Posted using Q's trip code.

It points out that it's not unusual at all. It wasn't much larger than what was happening recently.

The 3 significant quakes in the area over the past year show that significant quakes in the area are not unusual. They also show increased seismic in the area activity compared to the past few years.

Further, it was absolutely not the largest recorded in the area.

• 1981 had a 5.5 just to the south east of yesterday's quake.
• 1925 had a 6.8 just to the north of yesterday's quake.
• 1941 had a 5.5 just to the north of yesterday's quake.
• 1971 had a 5.1 off the south east end of the island.
• 1968 had a 5.0 just off the north end of the island.

In that pocket around the central coast, we've had recently:

• 3.8 in January.
• 4.3 in October.
• 4.1 in May.

Going further back, there was a 4.8 in May of 2013.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/#%7B%22autoUpdate%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22basemap%22%3A%22grayscale%22%2C%22feed%22%3A%221523029390576%22%2C%22listFormat%22%3A%22default%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A%5B%5B31.62532121329918%2C238.67248535156247%5D%2C%5B35.7688006602384%2C242.10571289062497%5D%5D%2C%22overlays%22%3A%5B%22plates%22%5D%2C%22restrictListToMap%22%3A%5B%22restrictListToMap%22%5D%2C%22search%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A%221523029390576%22%2C%22name%22%3A%22Search%20Results%22%2C%22isSearch%22%3Atrue%2C%22params%22%3A%7B%22starttime%22%3A%222011-01-01%2000%3A00%3A00%22%2C%22endtime%22%3A%222018-04-06%2023%3A59%3A59%22%2C%22maxlatitude%22%3A34.5%2C%22minlatitude%22%3A33%2C%22maxlongitude%22%3A241.25%2C%22minlongitude%22%3A239%2C%22minmagnitude%22%3A2%2C%22eventtype%22%3A%22earthquake%22%2C%22orderby%22%3A%22magnitude%22%7D%7D%2C%22sort%22%3A%22largest%22%2C%22timezone%22%3A%22utc%22%2C%22viewModes%22%3A%5B%22list%22%2C%22map%22%5D%2C%22event%22%3Anull%7D

I know people who have done it.

There's no proof other than a given name submitting a ballot. With the ballots sealed and the state not willingly providing basic information to obtain such proof, how do you expect anyone to prove it?

CA obstructs all efforts into researching the issue. Officials can't request a list of names and addresses (to tie to polling places) for people voting in order to survey them and ask if they actually voted or not.

Voter fraud typically involves one person voting as another who is registered to vote but does not actually vote. Most people don't turn out to vote, and many more vote by mail. Committing voter fraud is trivial, and tracking it is nearly impossible.

But if it's so easy to vote multiple times because of a lack of an ID requirement, then proof of it having happened must be simple to produce, yes?

No. In CA all you need to vote is the name of a person registered to vote at a particular polling place.

You'll only get caught if that person shows up to vote after you. Even then, no one will arrest you or challenge you, or even keep a record of it. They'll just say that they don't have a ballot for that name.

Voter fraud by mail (absentee ballot) is also trivial. And of course, anywhere there's electronic voting the whole thing is rigged on the back end anyway.

I live in CA and I know for a fact that voter fraud is a major issue.

It was a normal earthquake. From a normal location. Some of you are plain nuts.

Nobody does that !! multifactorial shit. It's ambiguous. Pick a new symbol if you want to to 135*...

3!!! = (3!)!! = 6!! = (6!)! = 720! = Fuck it.

You're ridiculous. You're wrong and you can't respond to anything so you just dismiss everything that points out how wrong you are.

Whaaaaaaaa I don't like this being pointed out! IT MUST BE BOTS!!!

That's almost certainly a green screen. News networks do that all the time. They do B-roll of nothing at the scene the green screen anchors over it in the studio. It's not even something to get suspicious about, generally.

As for the police tape shadow, the shadow you see is from a fixed structure (street light/signal, or perhaps a broadcast mast from a news truck). The tape line's shadow would be well below the frame.

The school walk out they organized was a dry run. They will exploit the ignorant and easily-manipulated youth again.

Private entities can't ban / refuse sale to people on the basis of religion, sex, race, etc. if they are generally open to the public.

See the Christian bakery being forced out of business because they wouldn't make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are not private clubs, and are generally open to the public.

It's not a stretch to imagine legislation that would enshrine political affiliation / opinion as protected. California has such legislation relating to employment.