>>11513
There is no need to provide "counter proof". The entire premise that you can take any numbers or words in any anons' post and apply them to POTUS tweet and it is therefore "proof" is faulty. Clearly there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what deltas were and were for.
-the problem you seem to have is, not any rando post was taken. it was the post directly correlating Corrupt to anons earlier proclamation that potus would say the word
so again your logic is faulty



Those deltas were meant to provide proof that Q was either with, in proximity of, or working with POTUS.
-AND NOW YOU HAVE THE PROOF


On 8ch, some people tried to apply deltas to their own posts or posts near Q posts to bolster whatever point they were trying to make. It didn't work because that wasn't the focus or intention of the deltas. It was a misapplication of the principle.
-THE DELTA IS TO CONFIRM "HE" IS WITH US
so again you do not seem to be thinking beyond the box


It has now devolved into something strangely personal, that whether the premise is correct or not reflects on one or more anons. And anyone who points out the obvious is called a shill. Confirmation bias can be a bitch, especially when the issue is personal: if wrong, then it hurts feelings/pride. Objectivity is lost and greater and greater attachment to the issue is shown which leads to ignoring logic and objective facts.