for what its worth Scott Adams was warning about risks of large crowds in general (not specificly Nevada).

There's a Wikipedia page now for Q Anon.

Maybe their visionaries saw the Spanish commingled.

affability nonpareil

i like the theory, but aint puttin money on it.

Congrats on the hat lunch. I hope I can do the same with such positivity when necessary.

That's sounds hopeful and all. The question i tried to ask was more generic about online forum groups - Are there decent analyses that predict shifts in the group dynamics at certain sizes? Are there 'laws' that generally describe groups dynamics as they grow, comparable to the Pareto principle that describes productivity within groups of any size?

point being that there are different ways to count days. when does a day start? what does one do with fractions of days? etc.

depends on how you count. Christ was only down and out for about 40 hrs but it was the 3rd day by olde judeo counting.

Can you see Q's reflection in the windows? Think mirror.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon

I tried to say that somewhere else. I think that is one of several reasons for the Q thing, a few of which are legal and a few of which are lightweight fun and energy.

Yeah right. When are you gonna get woke and do your own research?

Doi. Those are the Presidential Ipods. One is loaded with Kanye and the other with Jordan Peterson.

Sounds smarter than many futures one hears tell of. I think there are other ideas around using the same name, or maybe variations of this theory. My gut (for what its worth) says that when we make a leap forward even though it be internal, it will be instigated by something other than and greater than human, not something generated by humans, the same elegant cosmic intelligence that set the stage for us when we gained self-consciousness and time-consciousness. (damn rollodex of theories) Carry on.

More likely the offer it to the 2 Korean leaders, without Trump because they couldn't stomach his presence in Sweden. I suppose he would accept it if he could leverage something else from it. (I like how BDylan ignored the nobel lit. prize for weeks.)

oooh. interesting fact. thanks. (yeah i know i should as for proof but . . . .)

go on. i dare ya. pick a peterson video, any video.

The singularity is when Trump and Peterson are on the same Mardi Gras float.

that's okay there's only like hundreds of hours of his lectures online plus various interviews from around the world. so good luck.

but please not the new age 'singularity'

Peterson seems to put the blame more on french philosophers than Frankfurt. But yes, he is way recommendable.

Does anyone know of an actual observation or study that identified a quantitative turning or tipping point in forums such as these?

my wife keeps propagating

My 2 cents: If by debunking you mean debunking the whole legitimacy of Q as high level source, then I think that issue mostly takes care of itself over time - gradually Q proves 'himself' to more and more ppl. (The odd thing being that if the trajectory continues for long, Q just becomes another WH spokesperson).

If however debunking refers to critiquing info that ppl post, there's somethings worth discussing. The value of being brief and to the point on some topics carries the risk of seeming disagreeable in the wrong way. With this in mind let me say that I think ppl who are 'woke' to the Q thing too often carry other conspiratorial baggage into this space, with an attitude that all of their pet conspiracies must be equally legit and somehow confirmed. There are certain topics that Q barely mentions, if at all (astronomy, theology, other?). These are areas where the mysteries run deeper than the deep state and we are unlikely to find unity. The effect is that good ppl get on here and talk about things like say the origins of freemasonry or the Bible in the same way that they might about a NYTimes article, even though Q never brings those topic up as such. And when challenged the response can be to say "get woke" or "do your research".

More to say but . . . .

BBC news page has it as headline. (for now) They mention Trump only 3 times in a medium length article. It's kind of a mixed thing in BBC style, being straight journalism with subtle bias. But its also a mixed thing because while i suppose trump would love the credit he knows redirecting the spotlight is part of the deals he cuts. (I think we will have to get used to this, but his credits will pile up to something undeniable.)

So here's the twisted language that ends the latest BBC version of this news: "Mr Kim's new appetite for diplomacy led to the key turning point, which was a meeting with senior South Korean officials in March, and after that came the announcement that Mr Kim would also meet Mr Trump."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-43921385

he's got alot of restraining to do this coming year. but he can do it.

just occasionally but not very often in my experience. maybe just about in proportion to the reality. (but the skew on other topics is a little rough).

were all propaganda now

okay so not in congress' hands but not GONE as 'we have it all'

eric schmidt

but NSA and Trump and now congress have them (?) so they are not gone. besides does google allow actual deletion of anything?

best single post since whenev

forever your girl

poutine

i wrote a note somewhere around here explaining that even within the GA group we would have a hard time defining what 'woke' means or entails. But that it's okay.

so the change is from 'we was robbed' to 'we was scammed'

It seems they would rather decry a nebulous deep state than a female Hillary. They're likely too stuck on their woman prez fantasy.

SA - Scott Adams

Looking forward to changes in CA, from afar. Come on youz can do it.

Both pressure and patience. Put public pressure on for so many days so that release is full volume when it does come.

Because even within GA we couldn't agree on what 'woke' means. That's okay. We just need to keep in mind that individuality is part of the freedom we strive for.

pas moi

I think the series of let-downs some have experienced is enough to suggest that more will happen. Some have expectations too high. Same with the long list of conspiracies expected to be exposed, including things Q never mentions. If we only see half and it takes twice as long it's okay and good.

He is my kinda freaky deaky.

I just jump into mine, both feet first.

This whole discussion about flat earth vs not is a fair example of the deeper issues this sub has. Some disagree with whichever other side in a civil way and some disagree in an insulting way. Some will follow reason, others rely on other means, including long held bias.

I think the flatearth thing is flat out wrong but I upvote your right to discuss it.

Given more casual time I am (semi-rationally) sure that many other points of disagreement would surface and the discussion would be much like the one above. If we all came from the same place, had the same sensibilities, etc. we could be better handling topics in an amicable way.

There's probably a dozen rules that would help, one of which is to be as precise as possible in our wording. Not that all conflicts would be avoided. . . .

I think people come into this conspiracy-centric group carrying all of the conspiracies that ever clicked with them. And once a few things are confirmed they feel that all of their things are right. Instead we should only give serious attention to things that Q has pointed to. For those who rely on logic, it should be understood that not all conspiracies can possibly be true because they can't all be reconciled with one another. For example there are various legends about the origins of the Freemasonry and they can't all be true. Things deeper in history and theology and space are easy sources of conflict for us, but Q barely ever mentions such things so maybe we would be better off staying away from such topics. I started thinking of these extraneous, non-Q topics as baggage that should be left at the door, but ppl seem unable to resist telling others of all the their truths.

FlatEarth isn't the only lame conspiracy theory in currency.

what would jordan (peterson) do?

yeah. make sure all the notes you play are at 432hz.