Jump to content

spideysensei

Members
  • Posts

    591
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by spideysensei

  1. Very similar structure here with the enneagram's levels of health/development scale. https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/levels-of-development Only difference is it's type based, so it hones in on the particular strengths/difficulties. You can easily cross reference the two. A enneagram type 8 at levels 19-22 is probably sociopathic and violent towards others, a type 4 at that point is often equally destructive towards themselves. The Abraham-Hicks categories have broad enough appeal to suit the general psyche of everyone to some degree, so on that basis i like it. I'd guess i'm at 6-7 on your scale today. Day off work, couple of wake&bake spliffs and i'm gonna go out for a run in the nice weather in a bit. Might be enough to push me up to 4-5 later!
  2. I've had a look at some, i don't understand them all, but some are easy enough, like the very first one. Some need a better res photo. Regards the first, it is pretty interesting i'll give you that. It's evidence of a connection between the two parties (although not tippy top proof). It's not proof to me that "Q"/Trump is on the side of the people, because this may have been engineered this way to fit the overall Q narrative.
  3. So one can be reasonably sure it's the same person(s) posting every time. Is it hackable though? Forgive my ignorance i only learned what a trip code is 5 minutes ago.
  4. Open question(s). How do you know that a post from someone with the handle Q, is the Q you think is real? What's to stop any random person/people imitating the style of Q? Surely it has spawned copycats in the past?
  5. This appears to be in contradiction with a subsequent comment i'll get to... Might this be a case of present the worst scenario to the public (the public in this instance being Trump/Q supporters), but ease them into what they were after all the time? "It could've been much worse if not for us" they'll tell you. But did it have to happen at all? Why did anyone have to be injected for a fraudulent pandemic? Yes i believe the election was also fraudulent, embarrassingly so, to the extent that i wonder whether it was intentional to stoke the ire of Trump supporters. Here's where i see the contradiction. You claim that Trump/white hats are in charge, yet at the same time they've been infiltrated and so are not actually calling the shots?
  6. I think our standards of evidence are a little different. For me this is such a far out idea it needs to have extremely convincing evidence. Same reason i don't believe in ghosts... never seen one, never seen evidence that can't be explained some other way/fakery. It's possible you'll never meet my standards but it could also be true, not ruling that out either. Meanwhile the 'deep state' are allowed to run roughshod over the general public, by poisoning them, shutting down their businesses, and making all the other changes they want for the reset. So, if the deep state aren't really in charge, why are 'white hats' allowing this to happen? They could stop all of this carnage right now, but they won't, for some reason?
  7. I'm not, because you being right essentially solves everything going on in the world right now. It just sounds too good to be true. It's an extremely convoluted plan, and as i gather, it has to be this way to ease the shock of having everything revealed to the people? (correct me if wrong). There's always the chance that things such as Biden not flying on AF1 have been purposefully engineered to gel with the Q psyop (assuming it is). To be honest, i don't know. It'd be cool as hell if you were right, and if you are, there doesn't seem to be any downside to maintaining scepticism. Thanks for the info.
  8. Yes, but it won't be for a while. It'll trickle in over the next 10 years, and by that time the under 12s who've had gender reassignment surgery will be coming through the ranks. They'll probably get special privileges to do so. I know some of the feminism is a bit laughable, but better that than castrated males taking over their sport. So from that pov, count me in as an ardent feminist. Continue to take your tops off if you like ladies, it won't get any complaints from me.
  9. As in, why is the wall continuing to be built under the Biden admin?
  10. I'm finding it difficult to parse the meaning in your post. What are you actually suggesting is happening regarding the wall?
  11. Did she get booked for this, and if not, why the difference in rules between the men and women? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/62376808
  12. As a Marxist married to a Jew... (sounds like a the start of a bad joke). I'm wondering why he needed that 10k so badly.
  13. Agree with all points made. The problem i have with the likes of the BBC isn't the extra coverage the women have been getting, it's the fact they would love to see the women's game infiltrated with men, which it will be in 10 years give or take. They're just sad it's not going to happen sooner. So fuck the BBC, women are just another vehicle to suit whatever agenda they have going. I've been watching the Euro's anyway and i'm really impressed with the quality and how far they've come. Of course they're not going to beat the men, but i wouldn't refuse to watch a women's boxing match because they'd get pummelled by Tyson Fury. That said i think some of the play is a very high standard, especially the goalkeeping nowadays (used to be infamously terrible). Pound for pound i think they could take on Championship level teams maybe higher. What actual level of the men's pyramid could they play at though? I'm sure they would be beating junior/schoolkids, these women are fit and muscular *drool*. Amateur leagues? Well, as long as it wasn't amateur refereeing, and they were playing on a good pitch. Maybe amateur teams can route 1 them off the pitch just with height/strength, but if they had their game together with favourable conditions they could do it. Pro level is probably where they'd really struggle.
  14. I've looked at 4 different sources, which all estimate his net worth being somewhere between $1 and 5 million.
  15. What if the real purpose isn't to stop human trafficking? After all, Hillary and Obama have both called for a border wall in the past. It's only racist when our controlled opposition is fronting it!
  16. Nothing says controlled opposition like a man who'll take a 10k bung to drop criticism of vaccine manufacturers.
  17. Indeed i am probably biased, my point is that scepticism is a more favourable position than belief. If Q is right none of us have to do anything anyway. Oh well the sceptics get egg on our faces. I can take that if we are rid of the evil. If Q is wrong there may end up being consequences for believing as opposed to not. Apologies not needed imo. Every Q supporter should understand the value of scepticism towards beliefs and narratives, or they are no better than their opposition.
  18. @Grumpy Owl @Anti Facts Sir Thanks guys, i see your point. For me it would just be minor corrections or adding info. It's not important, sometimes not even on topic. Just times where i've realised later i may have said something factually incorrect. Perhaps if there were allowances based on the rep system. One can edit for example if they have a ok ratio of rep points, minimum 100-200 posts or summat. Could call it, The DI social credit score. Or DISCS for short. "Sorry mate you can't edit that, your DISCS have slipped".
  19. One general difference between Q believers and Q sceptics is that the believers want to be right, and the sceptics want to be wrong. How fortunate it would be for a group of elites to not only be on the side of good, but to guarantee they will eventually prevail without anyone else lifting a finger ('extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'). Q sceptics are practising better science; demonstrating how it is not true, because the consequences of a wrong assumption are even more dire. Q believers spend their energy demonstrating how it is true. Decoding, pattern recognition, gematria, etc. As such they are more prone to confirmation bias, and in some cases could qualify for an Olympic team with their gymnastic ability.
  20. Pool talk, cuz i'm still buzzing after playing so well (unbeaten) at the pub today. I'm gonna get a new cue and play more again. Snooker is so long winded at times with all the set up, and pool is fun but there's real skill also. Here's my observations of major mistakes that the average (even long term) player makes. 1. Hitting the ball too hard. Pool balls are ping pong balls compared to snooker, they fly about all over the place, and what's more so is the white, risking in offs and bad position. 2. Rushing shots. There's a misconception that in pool you have to be fast. You can't be a tortoise, but take your time with each shot. Visualize where everything should end up if the shot goes right. 3. Playing low percentage pots instead of safety. This is one where you really have to trust your potting, because you risk leaving your opponent in if you miss. Often the best shot looks completely insignificant. You nudge a cluster slightly open, your opponent can hit a ball but hasn't got a shot. Meanwhile 3 or 4 shots later you've got a chance on the ball you just nudged out. 4. Too distracted. Focus on the game. 5. Too drunk. You're not Alex Higgins; hands down the best drunk cue sportsman ever to play. With the worst cue action ever. The guy was a genius.
  21. Military shows up on flight radar all the time, down here, so that doesn't seem to be an issue. The plane in question the other night then (bomb's pics) was either hidden military or hidden private. Or some fascist hybrid, which i assume wouldn't show up on ADSB exchange either. I've bookmarked it now so i'll cross reference in future, cheers.
  22. Is there any funding bias or conflict of interests in the science chosen for the experiment? I think we all know the answer to that. They have assumed the science is settled, has reached a consensus, and is therefore infallible. Dangerously unscientific. As per Anti facts above, the arrogance here is astounding. It does not engender more trust in science, but less.
  23. gov hit piece - interesting reading https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/contrails-and-chemtrails-frequently-asked-questions/contrails decent docs https://www.bitchute.com/video/ONbPAHps5kcR/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/P8dzk3xhCJ1q/ https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/
×
×
  • Create New...