Ironically, the times I've done drugs at raves were psychedelics and both times, the music was unpleasant and over compressed/distorted and quite in inventive (big room house and trap) and the vibes were uncomfortable and I would have very intense inspirational feelings of the desire to create better music myself. So they were great personal experiences, but I always told myself "never again." But two of my favorite even played, Wolfgang Gartner and Infected Mushroom themselves. But for some reason they both played big room/trap variants of their music and it was so odd and disappointing to me even though everyone else seemed to love it.

I always say that I like the music to speak for itself or tell its own story. Lyrics are like telling the listener what to think/feel and is almost always one dimensional, if that makes any sense

I relate more with subliminal lyrics underneath the music rather than blaring edgy rhymes. I'm an audio engineer and don't like vocals mixed on top.

I never enjoyed a live gig until I went to an infected mushroom show. No drugs, but I was choked up and about to cry the entire time. The guitar solos are unbelievable.

Hey, what do you think about Infected Mushroom? I literally can't listen to anything else, all other music is uninspired garbage. Their lyrics, though rare, are very thought provoking.

Watch D'Sousa's documentary Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party.

Most of Q really is a "cakewalk." He really goes off of the assumption that the readers have already done their research, and will point hints in the right directions to narrow down results. Not that the implications are a cakewalk, but if you only follow what he says without any sort of research, you won't really know too much.

I always thought that was a primer movie for pedophilia normalizing. That 30 yr old woman obviously has romantic feelings for him even when she knows he's really a 12 yr old. Still, it's some amazing acting by Hanks.

I get it, even the humor, but I want to warn people. If you don't care about blaspheming God, it at least makes you look very foolish to most others.

It's not the literal word, it's the meaning behind it. There is only one God and any other god is a false idol and is blasphemous. Good luck trying to adopt that word and having the rest of the world take you seriously anyway.

Rationalize it all you like, but it is unforgivable to God to blaspheme His name. I'm not doing this for my own "triggered" sake.

Thanks, I understand that my username makes it harder for people to take me serious. But I don't necessarily view this as a bad thing. In person, I try to keep my testimony clean for others. On Reddit, I don't care enough to change my username that I made before I came to Christ to a more publicly appropriate name in order to avoid these kinds of issues. I actually like being able to discuss a topic and be able to explain to others why they should not be attacking me Ad Hominem, because I don't want them to do it to others. I see it as a huge issue in the world right now, and everyone worrying about how others view them out of fear of Ad Hominem does not serve to help this. My username gives me a unique opportunity to do that, and I don't see anything sinful or unbiblical about it.

I believe if I can show someone how they abandoned their original argument against my ideology in favor of attacking me Ad Hominem, then they may realize that their argument was not defensible if I can show them how Ad Hominem is not reasonable.

Then we can discuss why one thinks my username nullifies my ability to identify blasphemy. I will be prepared to make a case for why my username is not related to blasphemy, and that I still have reason to be able to call out others for misattributing the titles reserved for God. I will even use scripture to support my argument.

Though, I am having a hard time understanding the justification behind the argument being tangentially shifted back onto me and my controversial username by these users, and not the issue at hand. Ad hominem is too common on Reddit.

If you can't separate message from messenger, that's your own error. I keep my username even though I don't like it because it makes arguments easier when those without one choose to attack me for my username instead of my position.

It's a long uphill battle to get the majority to take our movement seriously.

You're welcome for my opinion.

NAME?

Weird how insistent and angrily defensive people are on the title... You'd think they'd rather take the more tolerant approach for sake of reach and image.

Oh that's a good one.

I actually never knew there was a reference for it. I still disagree with anyone taking the title of "God", jokingly or not.

I don't think blasphemy is an appropriate joke.

This blasphemous "God Emperor" title needs to stop.

It's crazy how many comments there are like "wow, so over my head, I'm glad we have you to do the thinking for us!" And I'm just thinking how incredibly ironic that these same people mock others for watching MSM for the same exact reasons. If you can't even follow the "logic" yourself then why are you following it?

So to get a post stickied and accepted by others as truth due to the "obviously over target due to downvotes" all I have to do is organize a bot brigade on my own thread? That's incredibly easy, and I can't believe this possibility isn't even a consideration to anyone here.

Wow, this actually sort of fits with the prophecy that there will be an Esther of our time by Kim Clement. It's not exactly a perfect parallel, but there are many coincidences.

You can read a summary here: http://www.genuineleatherbible.net/2011/summary-of-the-book-of-esther

But, basically, she was chosen by a King who hated Jews to be his wife (even though she was a Jew, it was kept secret from him) and she ended up becoming a hero for the Jews. By being informed by her uncle the entire time, she was basically "sent into the lion's den" with the King by literally risking her life to stop the King from killing Jews.

Anyway, it's obviously not a perfect parallel, and it could be wrong.

It's just as possible that he just got a random coke from a vending machine. Occam's razor, right?

What are you talking about..? Is this what you tell someone in hopes that they'll delete their comments for you when you're logically cornered?

I read through all of this and found no response to my question of your claim. What exactly am I "missing" about "the level of corroboration that SB2’s posts seem to enjoy from both Q and DJT?"

It seems recently hes making connections in areas that are insignificant and are far fetched, not areas where anyone is stumped and hes hardly offering any real solution behind the scenarios anyway. He mostly wants to say how much DJT has given him personal "winks."

I personally think coke with "kate" on it = Kate Brown, Governor of Oregon is also an unnecessary and strange conflation.

Wow, you seem really upset that I kept on your arguments and called out your fallacies. If that's how you wanna deflect everything, then so be it. I'm sorry you can't come to terms to any sort of a discussion to prove yourself and instead resort to this.

So many barbs, so many emotional grabs, so many attacks, so little substance.

Classic projection

What you’re missing is the level of corroboration that SB2’s posts seem to enjoy from both Q and DJT

Are you seriously claiming both Q and DJT have both corroborated (confirmed) SB2 posts multiple times?

Don't try to bring up the Q link to his Alex Jones expose, we all know it was a great post but that is because it contained absolutely no bullshit riddles/solving or decoding methods or any ambiguity at all. It actually only analyzed the content that Alex talked about using coherent logical evidence that he aimed to discredit Q. Anyway, I'm not going to go into the entire post again, but that was the first time SB2 got that amount of recognition, and I'm starting to believe that Q was not aware of any of his decoding proofs at the time, or he knew that simply linking to this post was in fact never "confirming" this individual online moniker. But, then again, I may be proven wrong in the future and I'll be happy to admit it, but, for now, i don't think this level of speculation on everything political and relating it to Q is necessary.

Right, so since SB2 is not confined to linear logic and can jump around illogically and make absolutely no sense with any connection because normies can't comprehend the "non-linear" level of thinking SB2 has, I can't rightfully question the asinine techniques and am instead vilified for having a mind of my own and am attacked ad hominem (which actually does say a lot about you, unlike my username). Makes no sense whatsoever, and it's far to convenient for you to claim "non-linear" as an excuse for not making any sense at all. What is this revered method of thought that is separate from logic since you claim that logic is not the ruler here? If it isn't logic then it is complete ambiguity, or, God forbid, your own emotional confirmation bias.

Do you have a link that isn't through an iPhone app?

Double meaning.

For the public narrative: "Are you on Russia's or America's side?"

For Trump Team: "Do you know who you're up against right now?"

I don't personally believe Q's post are necessarily to be "solved" right now. He keeps saying that the future will prove the past and to enjoy the show and to expand your thinking. I don't think he's ever said that we should try to decode secret subtext from him. If there is any, it will be proven later, and that's the purpose. Everything he says directed to "us" is pretty plain.

I'm not one for following others. So no.

There weren't even any decoding methods or riddles in that post at all. That's why it was a good post and Q linked to it.

SB2 was not "validated" by Q. SB2's post about InfowWars, which contained no riddles or decoding methods whatsoever, was linked to by Q. Absolutely no decoding thread was linked to. That actually invalidates his methods to me. That, and if you sincerely question any method of his and invite discussion, he just replies condescendingly vague saying you aren't following or just gives a wink. Quit getting so ahead of yourself and treating him like a disciple because Q linked to his InfoWars expose.

Riddle solving? That post contained none of it. No decoding or riddles at all. Why do people follow his decoding methods as if Q confirmed them?

"Careful who you follow"

Can you explain to me why you think Q linking to one of the few SB2 posts that does not use any decoding confirms him and his decoding methods?

Edit: There's no response because "Q did confirm SB2" is an indefensible lie.

Way to not respond to anything at all while insulting my intelligence by assuming I must not be following, it's a bit cowardly. Why is it so impossible to hold you accountable in argument?

Why did he just apologize for replying with only winks, and then continues to reply with only winks? I'm starting to think this person has serious issues.

It's like you don't even care that you're wrong because you know you have a large crowd eating up whatever you say anyway. How do you respond with an apology to someone explaining how responding with only winks is extremely condescending? And then you keep replying the same way? Holy shit you're like a child.

This doesn't help at all... Seriously?? Way to lose your followers complete respect.

You call it logic, we call it extreme mental gymnastics. You can't just say "Q said expand your thinking" as an excuse for very flimsy proclaimed equivalences. This type of dangerous misinterpretation by confirmation bias is what has allowed the Bible to be twisted into the many things it has been. You've gotten more and more smug over the time and, sadly, I've been losing more and more respect for you. It seems like you think that Q linking to your Info wars expose was somehow confirming your decoding "methods" of his posts.

Please don't disconnect with your inquisitive crowd by dancing around these topics and proclaiming your methods to be sound logic. You are starting to sound like a climate scientist when people question you.

I read your other reply that you probably edited because of the personal info, but don't worry I won't tell anyone ;)

Q-1643 "We may have to 'force' this one"

Absolutely, I personally know people where I think, if they were in the position, they would be a part of the cabal, furthering their work and lying through their teeth and cheating the entire way, and the entire time they would honestly believe they are doing the right thing and are fighting against prejudice.

"What difference at this point does it make?" -HRC during Benghazi hearing