Remember me
▼ Content

QAnontology


QAnontology19-02-2022 22:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
I have done my research. I have looked into QAnon. To the best of my research, QAnon is a fictitious and totally undefined buzzword invented by leftists attempting to create a panicked frenzy among their gullible, stupid mind-slaves around which to "rally the troops."

What prompted my research?

1. I know many conservatives and Trump supporters across the country. I know of zero people associated/affiliated with QAnon. In fact, no one I know knows anyone who knows anyone associated/affiliated with QAnon.

2. All references to QAnon come from leftists.

3. All references to QAnon are totally vague, leaving the question of exactly what QAnon actually is wide open to speculation, i.e. it could be a "movement" but then again it could be an actual "organization" or possibly even a danish pastry.

4. The only "evidence" presented are Twitter tweets and meme images of the type that I make using GIMP. There are never any videos of people stating their names and stating their reasons for associating with the movement/organization/pastry. I did notice that every occurrence of the letter "Q", regardless of where it might reside in the world, is fair game for being presented as "evidence" of QAnon.

5. tmiddles refused to provide me any sort of concrete information, speaking volumes about what I would eventually discover.

So, here is what I gleaned from websites with information on QAnon, noting that every single one of these sites is a rabidly leftist disinformation center.

* Wikipedia: The wiki implies that QAnon is a collection of WACKY conspiracy theories, like the missing Aesop's Sininster Fables or something ... with a heavy dose of historical revisionism thrown in for good measure.

* BBC: uses the word "QAnon" as a slur for Trump supporters.

* Anti-Defamation League: wields the word "QAnon" as a notional concept meaning "support for Trump" and proceeds to totally defame it from all angles.

* CNN: doesn't want to commit to any definition of QAnon, and instead just wants the world to know that "Born on the dark fringes of the internet, QAnon is now infiltrating mainstream American life and politics." If you didn't catch that, QAnon is "infiltrating" American life, and was born on the "dark fringes" of the internet. Your guess is as good as mine as to what kind of thing fits that description.

* CBS News: decided to characterize QAnon as an "effect" but otherwise plagiarized CNN's party line: "What started as a fringe movement among former President Trump's supporters, confined to the shadier corners of the internet, has taken a mainstream turn."

* Christianity Today [My Second Favorite]: Whatever this publication might have been was taken over by Christian-hating Marxists and now it mocks Christians for not falling in line with Climate Change. CT has an article on what the Bible says about QAnon, and of course the article's take is that God should be consulted for help and strength with the following questions: "How can I confidently assess this theory that I'm believing in? How could I be wrong about this? And how would I know that I was wrong if I were?"

* The Sun: flat out declares QAnon a disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory alleging that a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping, cannibalistic pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotted against former U.S. president Donald Trump while he was in office. Apparently there is no "membership" or "movement" or people or pastries involved.

* The New York Times: explains that the reason we haven't heard anything lately is that QAnon is "being quiet" but most assuredly "lives on". The NYT take is that now QAnon has no leader so now everyone is free to tailor his own WACKY conspiracy theories to his liking.

* VICE.com [My Favorite]: I recommend this one to everyone. Apparently Tucker Carlson asked the same questions I did and decided to do the same research I did. Tucker devoted an episode to saying essentially what I have said in this post. Along comes VICE.com to play the role of tmiddles and to mock Tucker for having asked in the first place. You can check it out HERE.

I think this is enough for now. @tmiddles, there's nothing out there to even suggest that you aren't pulling everything out of your ass.
Attached image:

21-02-2022 16:55
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3118)
Nailed it. I'm sure tmiddles will have nothing intelligent to say about the matter.

You have now inspired me to add 'QAnon' to my Lispy Leftist List of Linguistic Lunacy.

Now at 182 line items and growing... Leftists will get it up to 200 soon enough...
RE: Post it here. I'll rebut on my thread.23-03-2022 04:26
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Post it here. I'll rebut on my thread.

There is one and only one way for you to get me to respond to any assertion you publish.

It does not have to be THIS THREAD.

You might want to start a new one with a title to match thread versus thread, so it is clear that these are the TWO DEBATING THREADS.

I will continue to respond to direct points of science as a biogeochemist.

Biogeochemistry is not up for debate as a climate debate.

But when in debate, do as debaters do.

Each side presents affirmative original arguments using words of their own choice.

Each side rebuts affirmative original arguments from the other side.

Each side physically remains on its own side of the aisle within the chamber.

You will see my rebuttal to the argument you post on YOUR thread, posted on THIS thread. The subject titles will make it clear exactly which posts are being rebutted.

YOU WILL BE ABSOLUTELY IGNORED IF YOU POST ON THIS THREAD,

Unless you are making points in support of the falsifiable hypothesis that:

1. CLIMATE CHANGE is REAL.

2. CLIMATE CHANGE is ALARMING.

They will be presented both as falsifiable hypothesis according to the Scientific Method, and as admissible evidence according to rules of debate and reality.

See if you ever learned any science or ever learned how to debate.

TAKE THE CLIMATE DEBATE CHALLENGE.

Make this thread your homesite.

It is already one of only two or three threads beyond my own where I have ever posted, and I want that to be as long as the list gets.

Part of being a troll is that 99% of my posts, literally, are on my own thread. homesite
-------------------------------------------------------------





































































IBdaMann wrote:
I have done my research. I have looked into QAnon. To the best of my research, QAnon is a fictitious and totally undefined buzzword invented by leftists attempting to create a panicked frenzy among their gullible, stupid mind-slaves around which to "rally the troops."

What prompted my research?

1. I know many conservatives and Trump supporters across the country. I know of zero people associated/affiliated with QAnon. In fact, no one I know knows anyone who knows anyone associated/affiliated with QAnon.

2. All references to QAnon come from leftists.

3. All references to QAnon are totally vague, leaving the question of exactly what QAnon actually is wide open to speculation, i.e. it could be a "movement" but then again it could be an actual "organization" or possibly even a danish pastry.

4. The only "evidence" presented are Twitter tweets and meme images of the type that I make using GIMP. There are never any videos of people stating their names and stating their reasons for associating with the movement/organization/pastry. I did notice that every occurrence of the letter "Q", regardless of where it might reside in the world, is fair game for being presented as "evidence" of QAnon.

5. tmiddles refused to provide me any sort of concrete information, speaking volumes about what I would eventually discover.

So, here is what I gleaned from websites with information on QAnon, noting that every single one of these sites is a rabidly leftist disinformation center.

* Wikipedia: The wiki implies that QAnon is a collection of WACKY conspiracy theories, like the missing Aesop's Sininster Fables or something ... with a heavy dose of historical revisionism thrown in for good measure.

* BBC: uses the word "QAnon" as a slur for Trump supporters.

* Anti-Defamation League: wields the word "QAnon" as a notional concept meaning "support for Trump" and proceeds to totally defame it from all angles.

* CNN: doesn't want to commit to any definition of QAnon, and instead just wants the world to know that "Born on the dark fringes of the internet, QAnon is now infiltrating mainstream American life and politics." If you didn't catch that, QAnon is "infiltrating" American life, and was born on the "dark fringes" of the internet. Your guess is as good as mine as to what kind of thing fits that description.

* CBS News: decided to characterize QAnon as an "effect" but otherwise plagiarized CNN's party line: "What started as a fringe movement among former President Trump's supporters, confined to the shadier corners of the internet, has taken a mainstream turn."

* Christianity Today [My Second Favorite]: Whatever this publication might have been was taken over by Christian-hating Marxists and now it mocks Christians for not falling in line with Climate Change. CT has an article on what the Bible says about QAnon, and of course the article's take is that God should be consulted for help and strength with the following questions: "How can I confidently assess this theory that I'm believing in? How could I be wrong about this? And how would I know that I was wrong if I were?"

* The Sun: flat out declares QAnon a disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory alleging that a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping, cannibalistic pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotted against former U.S. president Donald Trump while he was in office. Apparently there is no "membership" or "movement" or people or pastries involved.

* The New York Times: explains that the reason we haven't heard anything lately is that QAnon is "being quiet" but most assuredly "lives on". The NYT take is that now QAnon has no leader so now everyone is free to tailor his own WACKY conspiracy theories to his liking.

* VICE.com [My Favorite]: I recommend this one to everyone. Apparently Tucker Carlson asked the same questions I did and decided to do the same research I did. Tucker devoted an episode to saying essentially what I have said in this post. Along comes VICE.com to play the role of tmiddles and to mock Tucker for having asked in the first place. You can check it out HERE.

I think this is enough for now. @tmiddles, there's nothing out there to even suggest that you aren't pulling everything out of your ass.
23-03-2022 04:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
IBdaMann wrote:
I have done my research. I have looked into QAnon. To the best of my research, QAnon is a fictitious and totally undefined buzzword invented by leftists attempting to create a panicked frenzy among their gullible, stupid mind-slaves around which to "rally the troops."

What prompted my research?

1. I know many conservatives and Trump supporters across the country. I know of zero people associated/affiliated with QAnon. In fact, no one I know knows anyone who knows anyone associated/affiliated with QAnon.

2. All references to QAnon come from leftists.

3. All references to QAnon are totally vague, leaving the question of exactly what QAnon actually is wide open to speculation, i.e. it could be a "movement" but then again it could be an actual "organization" or possibly even a danish pastry.

4. The only "evidence" presented are Twitter tweets and meme images of the type that I make using GIMP. There are never any videos of people stating their names and stating their reasons for associating with the movement/organization/pastry. I did notice that every occurrence of the letter "Q", regardless of where it might reside in the world, is fair game for being presented as "evidence" of QAnon.

5. tmiddles refused to provide me any sort of concrete information, speaking volumes about what I would eventually discover.

So, here is what I gleaned from websites with information on QAnon, noting that every single one of these sites is a rabidly leftist disinformation center.

* Wikipedia: The wiki implies that QAnon is a collection of WACKY conspiracy theories, like the missing Aesop's Sininster Fables or something ... with a heavy dose of historical revisionism thrown in for good measure.

* BBC: uses the word "QAnon" as a slur for Trump supporters.

* Anti-Defamation League: wields the word "QAnon" as a notional concept meaning "support for Trump" and proceeds to totally defame it from all angles.

* CNN: doesn't want to commit to any definition of QAnon, and instead just wants the world to know that "Born on the dark fringes of the internet, QAnon is now infiltrating mainstream American life and politics." If you didn't catch that, QAnon is "infiltrating" American life, and was born on the "dark fringes" of the internet. Your guess is as good as mine as to what kind of thing fits that description.

* CBS News: decided to characterize QAnon as an "effect" but otherwise plagiarized CNN's party line: "What started as a fringe movement among former President Trump's supporters, confined to the shadier corners of the internet, has taken a mainstream turn."

* Christianity Today [My Second Favorite]: Whatever this publication might have been was taken over by Christian-hating Marxists and now it mocks Christians for not falling in line with Climate Change. CT has an article on what the Bible says about QAnon, and of course the article's take is that God should be consulted for help and strength with the following questions: "How can I confidently assess this theory that I'm believing in? How could I be wrong about this? And how would I know that I was wrong if I were?"

* The Sun: flat out declares QAnon a disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory alleging that a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping, cannibalistic pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotted against former U.S. president Donald Trump while he was in office. Apparently there is no "membership" or "movement" or people or pastries involved.

* The New York Times: explains that the reason we haven't heard anything lately is that QAnon is "being quiet" but most assuredly "lives on". The NYT take is that now QAnon has no leader so now everyone is free to tailor his own WACKY conspiracy theories to his liking.

* VICE.com [My Favorite]: I recommend this one to everyone. Apparently Tucker Carlson asked the same questions I did and decided to do the same research I did. Tucker devoted an episode to saying essentially what I have said in this post. Along comes VICE.com to play the role of tmiddles and to mock Tucker for having asked in the first place. You can check it out HERE.

I think this is enough for now. @tmiddles, there's nothing out there to even suggest that you aren't pulling everything out of your ass.

An excellent bit of research. I suggest you put your findings in the politiplex references.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-03-2022 04:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
gfm7175 wrote:
Nailed it. I'm sure tmiddles will have nothing intelligent to say about the matter.

You have now inspired me to add 'QAnon' to my Lispy Leftist List of Linguistic Lunacy.

Now at 182 line items and growing... Leftists will get it up to 200 soon enough...

Thanks. That's a good place for it, but the full research results should also be stored.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-03-2022 05:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Post it here. I'll rebut on my thread.
...deleted excess noise...


Attempt to hijack thread. Spamming. Buzzword fallacies. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Climate Change is Real and Alarming - Pro or con threads23-03-2022 05:31
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Climate Change is Real and Alarming.

That is a falsifiable hypothesis.

That is what the debate proposed is for or against.

It's either true or it's not.

It is a falsifiable hypothesis.

In the near future when this becomes real, we should both use almost the same name in our opposing threads.

The only difference being for or against.

Climate Change is Real and Alarming - Argument FOR the Assertion.

Climate Change is Real and Alarming - Argument AGAINST the Assertion.

I am happy to host the argument for on a thread of my own.

I invite you to host the argument against on a thread of your own.

Otherwise I'll be arguing unopposed into an echo chamber as far as my own thread goes.

The "echo chamber" is not because there is no cacophony of heckling from trolls.

It is because when people go to the library to find the lists of posts they want to look at, the voices of the trolls will not be represented. ANYWHERE. Except where they have been selectively quoted to reveal the weakness of their scientific arguments or moral characters.

Please don't make me debate all by myself.

I have plenty of experience lecturing, so I guess I'll make it work.

But please create a thread of your own where I can see your original affirmative arguments.

Otherwise I will never respond to ANYTHING you say about debate or climate.

I can keep this up all decade.

I intend to.

I hope you're not a no-show for the debate.

You'll know where to find my published position.
------------------------------------------

















IBdaMann wrote:
I have done my research. I have looked into QAnon. To the best of my research, QAnon is a fictitious and totally undefined buzzword invented by leftists attempting to create a panicked frenzy among their gullible, stupid mind-slaves around which to "rally the troops."

What prompted my research?

1. I know many conservatives and Trump supporters across the country. I know of zero people associated/affiliated with QAnon. In fact, no one I know knows anyone who knows anyone associated/affiliated with QAnon.

2. All references to QAnon come from leftists.

3. All references to QAnon are totally vague, leaving the question of exactly what QAnon actually is wide open to speculation, i.e. it could be a "movement" but then again it could be an actual "organization" or possibly even a danish pastry.

4. The only "evidence" presented are Twitter tweets and meme images of the type that I make using GIMP. There are never any videos of people stating their names and stating their reasons for associating with the movement/organization/pastry. I did notice that every occurrence of the letter "Q", regardless of where it might reside in the world, is fair game for being presented as "evidence" of QAnon.

5. tmiddles refused to provide me any sort of concrete information, speaking volumes about what I would eventually discover.

So, here is what I gleaned from websites with information on QAnon, noting that every single one of these sites is a rabidly leftist disinformation center.

* Wikipedia: The wiki implies that QAnon is a collection of WACKY conspiracy theories, like the missing Aesop's Sininster Fables or something ... with a heavy dose of historical revisionism thrown in for good measure.

* BBC: uses the word "QAnon" as a slur for Trump supporters.

* Anti-Defamation League: wields the word "QAnon" as a notional concept meaning "support for Trump" and proceeds to totally defame it from all angles.

* CNN: doesn't want to commit to any definition of QAnon, and instead just wants the world to know that "Born on the dark fringes of the internet, QAnon is now infiltrating mainstream American life and politics." If you didn't catch that, QAnon is "infiltrating" American life, and was born on the "dark fringes" of the internet. Your guess is as good as mine as to what kind of thing fits that description.

* CBS News: decided to characterize QAnon as an "effect" but otherwise plagiarized CNN's party line: "What started as a fringe movement among former President Trump's supporters, confined to the shadier corners of the internet, has taken a mainstream turn."

* Christianity Today [My Second Favorite]: Whatever this publication might have been was taken over by Christian-hating Marxists and now it mocks Christians for not falling in line with Climate Change. CT has an article on what the Bible says about QAnon, and of course the article's take is that God should be consulted for help and strength with the following questions: "How can I confidently assess this theory that I'm believing in? How could I be wrong about this? And how would I know that I was wrong if I were?"

* The Sun: flat out declares QAnon a disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory alleging that a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping, cannibalistic pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotted against former U.S. president Donald Trump while he was in office. Apparently there is no "membership" or "movement" or people or pastries involved.

* The New York Times: explains that the reason we haven't heard anything lately is that QAnon is "being quiet" but most assuredly "lives on". The NYT take is that now QAnon has no leader so now everyone is free to tailor his own WACKY conspiracy theories to his liking.

* VICE.com [My Favorite]: I recommend this one to everyone. Apparently Tucker Carlson asked the same questions I did and decided to do the same research I did. Tucker devoted an episode to saying essentially what I have said in this post. Along comes VICE.com to play the role of tmiddles and to mock Tucker for having asked in the first place. You can check it out HERE.

I think this is enough for now. @tmiddles, there's nothing out there to even suggest that you aren't pulling everything out of your ass.
23-03-2022 05:57
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2431)
sealover wrote:
Climate Change is Real and Alarming.
That is a falsifiable hypothesis.


So, for a theory to be falsified, it only needs to be shown false one time. After that it is destroyed forever.

I am not alarmed. Falsified. Done. Destroyed.


I just make shit up- sealover
23-03-2022 07:11
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
There is no denying that Climate Change is real. Nothing to discuss there. It's a real doomsday cult.

And yes, it's alarming. I didn't care at all for the first few decades, just the usual liberal, environmentalist nut-jobs. It got alarming, when our government started passing out millions of taxpayer dollars every year, in support. Got even more alarming, with the proposals of carbon taxing, to punish non-believers.

I don't care if people sit around sipping spiked Kool-Aid, fantasizing about the end of the world. I do care about having to pick up the tab for the party.
23-03-2022 20:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Climate Change is Real and Alarming.

Define 'climate change'.
sealover wrote:
That is a falsifiable hypothesis.

No such thing. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
That is what the debate proposed is for or against.

It's either true or it's not.

You're gonna have to define it first.
sealover wrote:
It is a falsifiable hypothesis.

You already said this. No such thing.
sealover wrote:
In the near future when this becomes real, we should both use almost the same name in our opposing threads.
...delete excessive noise...

Buzzword fallacies. Spamming. Trolling. Request to spam. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: That's fine. I can have the debate by myself.23-03-2022 20:53
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
That's fine. I can have the debate by myself.

I'm surprised that nobody agrees it would be good to have two dedicated threads exclusively for CLIMATE DEBATE.

Oh, well.

One of these days people will come here to seek information about the science of climate change.

They won't be trying to find any posts from I BE DUMB or PARROT BOY.

What could they possibly learn from reading THAT shit.

Those guys don't even bother writing in a way that someone could come look up their scientific wisdom.

Come to think of it, wouldn't it be incredibly embarrassing for them if anyone did. Tens of thousands of posts to learn so much useful climate-change related science from!

They'll be coming here from all over the world to look up the genius words.

They'll just love the ugly clown pictures too.

Only someone who is right about the science would know how to post that.

It's fine with me if you don't want to start your own debate thread.

I'm pretty sure someone else from the denial camp will swoop in when they learn what is going on here.

They'll have to take the helm in defense of science and start the debate thread.

I could even e mail some of them to let them know someone needs to fill in the breach and defend science against people like "sealover" and the other buzzword gibber babblers that are coming.

Would it be a bad thing to have a dedicated thread where the "debate" position is argued that climate change is neither real nor alarming?

Maybe we will set up a straw man thread to argue your position for you.

It will make for a smoother debate if we get to write the script for Ignoramus ourselves.

At least we will make your point for you more clearly than you can.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

sealover wrote:
Climate Change is Real and Alarming.

That is a falsifiable hypothesis.

That is what the debate proposed is for or against.

It's either true or it's not.

It is a falsifiable hypothesis.

In the near future when this becomes real, we should both use almost the same name in our opposing threads.

The only difference being for or against.

Climate Change is Real and Alarming - Argument FOR the Assertion.

Climate Change is Real and Alarming - Argument AGAINST the Assertion.

I am happy to host the argument for on a thread of my own.

I invite you to host the argument against on a thread of your own.

Otherwise I'll be arguing unopposed into an echo chamber as far as my own thread goes.

The "echo chamber" is not because there is no cacophony of heckling from trolls.

It is because when people go to the library to find the lists of posts they want to look at, the voices of the trolls will not be represented. ANYWHERE. Except where they have been selectively quoted to reveal the weakness of their scientific arguments or moral characters.

Please don't make me debate all by myself.

I have plenty of experience lecturing, so I guess I'll make it work.

But please create a thread of your own where I can see your original affirmative arguments.

Otherwise I will never respond to ANYTHING you say about debate or climate.

I can keep this up all decade.

I intend to.

I hope you're not a no-show for the debate.

You'll know where to find my published position.
------------------------------------------

















IBdaMann wrote:
I have done my research. I have looked into QAnon. To the best of my research, QAnon is a fictitious and totally undefined buzzword invented by leftists attempting to create a panicked frenzy among their gullible, stupid mind-slaves around which to "rally the troops."

What prompted my research?

1. I know many conservatives and Trump supporters across the country. I know of zero people associated/affiliated with QAnon. In fact, no one I know knows anyone who knows anyone associated/affiliated with QAnon.

2. All references to QAnon come from leftists.

3. All references to QAnon are totally vague, leaving the question of exactly what QAnon actually is wide open to speculation, i.e. it could be a "movement" but then again it could be an actual "organization" or possibly even a danish pastry.

4. The only "evidence" presented are Twitter tweets and meme images of the type that I make using GIMP. There are never any videos of people stating their names and stating their reasons for associating with the movement/organization/pastry. I did notice that every occurrence of the letter "Q", regardless of where it might reside in the world, is fair game for being presented as "evidence" of QAnon.

5. tmiddles refused to provide me any sort of concrete information, speaking volumes about what I would eventually discover.

So, here is what I gleaned from websites with information on QAnon, noting that every single one of these sites is a rabidly leftist disinformation center.

* Wikipedia: The wiki implies that QAnon is a collection of WACKY conspiracy theories, like the missing Aesop's Sininster Fables or something ... with a heavy dose of historical revisionism thrown in for good measure.

* BBC: uses the word "QAnon" as a slur for Trump supporters.

* Anti-Defamation League: wields the word "QAnon" as a notional concept meaning "support for Trump" and proceeds to totally defame it from all angles.

* CNN: doesn't want to commit to any definition of QAnon, and instead just wants the world to know that "Born on the dark fringes of the internet, QAnon is now infiltrating mainstream American life and politics." If you didn't catch that, QAnon is "infiltrating" American life, and was born on the "dark fringes" of the internet. Your guess is as good as mine as to what kind of thing fits that description.

* CBS News: decided to characterize QAnon as an "effect" but otherwise plagiarized CNN's party line: "What started as a fringe movement among former President Trump's supporters, confined to the shadier corners of the internet, has taken a mainstream turn."

* Christianity Today [My Second Favorite]: Whatever this publication might have been was taken over by Christian-hating Marxists and now it mocks Christians for not falling in line with Climate Change. CT has an article on what the Bible says about QAnon, and of course the article's take is that God should be consulted for help and strength with the following questions: "How can I confidently assess this theory that I'm believing in? How could I be wrong about this? And how would I know that I was wrong if I were?"

* The Sun: flat out declares QAnon a disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory alleging that a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping, cannibalistic pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotted against former U.S. president Donald Trump while he was in office. Apparently there is no "membership" or "movement" or people or pastries involved.

* The New York Times: explains that the reason we haven't heard anything lately is that QAnon is "being quiet" but most assuredly "lives on". The NYT take is that now QAnon has no leader so now everyone is free to tailor his own WACKY conspiracy theories to his liking.

* VICE.com [My Favorite]: I recommend this one to everyone. Apparently Tucker Carlson asked the same questions I did and decided to do the same research I did. Tucker devoted an episode to saying essentially what I have said in this post. Along comes VICE.com to play the role of tmiddles and to mock Tucker for having asked in the first place. You can check it out HERE.

I think this is enough for now. @tmiddles, there's nothing out there to even suggest that you aren't pulling everything out of your ass.
23-03-2022 22:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
That's fine. I can have the debate by myself.
...deleted excess noise...

Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-03-2022 18:19
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1220)
IBdaMann wrote:
I have done my research. I have looked into QAnon. To the best of my research, QAnon is a fictitious and totally undefined buzzword invented by leftists attempting to create a panicked frenzy among their gullible, stupid mind-slaves around which to "rally the troops."

What prompted my research?

1. I know many conservatives and Trump supporters across the country. I know of zero people associated/affiliated with QAnon. In fact, no one I know knows anyone who knows anyone associated/affiliated with QAnon.

2. All references to QAnon come from leftists.

3. All references to QAnon are totally vague, leaving the question of exactly what QAnon actually is wide open to speculation, i.e. it could be a "movement" but then again it could be an actual "organization" or possibly even a danish pastry.

4. The only "evidence" presented are Twitter tweets and meme images of the type that I make using GIMP. There are never any videos of people stating their names and stating their reasons for associating with the movement/organization/pastry. I did notice that every occurrence of the letter "Q", regardless of where it might reside in the world, is fair game for being presented as "evidence" of QAnon.

5. tmiddles refused to provide me any sort of concrete information, speaking volumes about what I would eventually discover.

So, here is what I gleaned from websites with information on QAnon, noting that every single one of these sites is a rabidly leftist disinformation center.

* Wikipedia: The wiki implies that QAnon is a collection of WACKY conspiracy theories, like the missing Aesop's Sininster Fables or something ... with a heavy dose of historical revisionism thrown in for good measure.

* BBC: uses the word "QAnon" as a slur for Trump supporters.

* Anti-Defamation League: wields the word "QAnon" as a notional concept meaning "support for Trump" and proceeds to totally defame it from all angles.

* CNN: doesn't want to commit to any definition of QAnon, and instead just wants the world to know that "Born on the dark fringes of the internet, QAnon is now infiltrating mainstream American life and politics." If you didn't catch that, QAnon is "infiltrating" American life, and was born on the "dark fringes" of the internet. Your guess is as good as mine as to what kind of thing fits that description.

* CBS News: decided to characterize QAnon as an "effect" but otherwise plagiarized CNN's party line: "What started as a fringe movement among former President Trump's supporters, confined to the shadier corners of the internet, has taken a mainstream turn."

* Christianity Today [My Second Favorite]: Whatever this publication might have been was taken over by Christian-hating Marxists and now it mocks Christians for not falling in line with Climate Change. CT has an article on what the Bible says about QAnon, and of course the article's take is that God should be consulted for help and strength with the following questions: "How can I confidently assess this theory that I'm believing in? How could I be wrong about this? And how would I know that I was wrong if I were?"

* The Sun: flat out declares QAnon a disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory alleging that a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping, cannibalistic pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotted against former U.S. president Donald Trump while he was in office. Apparently there is no "membership" or "movement" or people or pastries involved.

* The New York Times: explains that the reason we haven't heard anything lately is that QAnon is "being quiet" but most assuredly "lives on". The NYT take is that now QAnon has no leader so now everyone is free to tailor his own WACKY conspiracy theories to his liking.

* VICE.com [My Favorite]: I recommend this one to everyone. Apparently Tucker Carlson asked the same questions I did and decided to do the same research I did. Tucker devoted an episode to saying essentially what I have said in this post. Along comes VICE.com to play the role of tmiddles and to mock Tucker for having asked in the first place. You can check it out HERE.

I think this is enough for now. @tmiddles, there's nothing out there to even suggest that you aren't pulling everything out of your ass.


How can Q not be real when Q owns your mind?
RE: irrelevant conspiracy theory16-04-2022 19:08
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(158)
This thread does not pretend to be relevant to the website.

It is a conspiracy theory.

It includes insults directed at other site members.









IBdaMann wrote:
I have done my research. I have looked into QAnon. To the best of my research, QAnon is a fictitious and totally undefined buzzword invented by leftists attempting to create a panicked frenzy among their gullible, stupid mind-slaves around which to "rally the troops."

What prompted my research?

1. I know many conservatives and Trump supporters across the country. I know of zero people associated/affiliated with QAnon. In fact, no one I know knows anyone who knows anyone associated/affiliated with QAnon.

2. All references to QAnon come from leftists.

3. All references to QAnon are totally vague, leaving the question of exactly what QAnon actually is wide open to speculation, i.e. it could be a "movement" but then again it could be an actual "organization" or possibly even a danish pastry.

4. The only "evidence" presented are Twitter tweets and meme images of the type that I make using GIMP. There are never any videos of people stating their names and stating their reasons for associating with the movement/organization/pastry. I did notice that every occurrence of the letter "Q", regardless of where it might reside in the world, is fair game for being presented as "evidence" of QAnon.

5. tmiddles refused to provide me any sort of concrete information, speaking volumes about what I would eventually discover.

So, here is what I gleaned from websites with information on QAnon, noting that every single one of these sites is a rabidly leftist disinformation center.

* Wikipedia: The wiki implies that QAnon is a collection of WACKY conspiracy theories, like the missing Aesop's Sininster Fables or something ... with a heavy dose of historical revisionism thrown in for good measure.

* BBC: uses the word "QAnon" as a slur for Trump supporters.

* Anti-Defamation League: wields the word "QAnon" as a notional concept meaning "support for Trump" and proceeds to totally defame it from all angles.

* CNN: doesn't want to commit to any definition of QAnon, and instead just wants the world to know that "Born on the dark fringes of the internet, QAnon is now infiltrating mainstream American life and politics." If you didn't catch that, QAnon is "infiltrating" American life, and was born on the "dark fringes" of the internet. Your guess is as good as mine as to what kind of thing fits that description.

* CBS News: decided to characterize QAnon as an "effect" but otherwise plagiarized CNN's party line: "What started as a fringe movement among former President Trump's supporters, confined to the shadier corners of the internet, has taken a mainstream turn."

* Christianity Today [My Second Favorite]: Whatever this publication might have been was taken over by Christian-hating Marxists and now it mocks Christians for not falling in line with Climate Change. CT has an article on what the Bible says about QAnon, and of course the article's take is that God should be consulted for help and strength with the following questions: "How can I confidently assess this theory that I'm believing in? How could I be wrong about this? And how would I know that I was wrong if I were?"

* The Sun: flat out declares QAnon a disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory alleging that a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping, cannibalistic pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotted against former U.S. president Donald Trump while he was in office. Apparently there is no "membership" or "movement" or people or pastries involved.

* The New York Times: explains that the reason we haven't heard anything lately is that QAnon is "being quiet" but most assuredly "lives on". The NYT take is that now QAnon has no leader so now everyone is free to tailor his own WACKY conspiracy theories to his liking.

* VICE.com [My Favorite]: I recommend this one to everyone. Apparently Tucker Carlson asked the same questions I did and decided to do the same research I did. Tucker devoted an episode to saying essentially what I have said in this post. Along comes VICE.com to play the role of tmiddles and to mock Tucker for having asked in the first place. You can check it out HERE.

I think this is enough for now. @tmiddles, there's nothing out there to even suggest that you aren't pulling everything out of your ass.
16-04-2022 20:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
...deleted damaged quoting...
Im a BM wrote:
This thread does not pretend to be relevant to the website.

The thread is about describing why QAnon is a buzzword. This buzzword DOES come up in discussions with the Church of Global Warming.
Im a BM wrote:
It is a conspiracy theory.

The Democrat party is a conspiracy. QAnon is not a conspiracy. It is a buzzword.
Im a BM wrote:
It includes insults directed at other site members.

Pretty much all threads include insults directed at other site members. You provided many of them, sealover.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan




Join the debate QAnontology:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact