Great breakdown anon. That took a lot of work. Upvoted!
Another alternative would be to not even mention the person(s) called "Q." Why mention it? (What if they want to look at recent posts? Telling them "There aren't any! After the 2020 election was stolen and the govt failed to address the glaring systemic election fraud, Q had nothing important to share and vanished; we're going on past info, hope, and speculation ever since then" isn't going to be helpful. :)
Instead, why not focus on the actual intel, the stuff Q found important enough to highlight in the drops. Instead of pointing to Q or Q drops, point to selected intel WITHIN the drops, and let them digest it on its own merit. (Esp. since the info can't stand on the reputation of the messenger: he's anonymous!)
At this point Q is a historian. What's important is the (true) history, not the historian.
Great breakdown anon. That took a lot of work. Upvoted!
Another alternative would be to not even mention the person(s) called "Q." Why mention it? (What if they want to look at recent posts? Telling them "There aren't any! After the 2020 election was stolen and the govt failed to address the glaring systemic election fraud, Q had nothing important to share and vanished; we're going on past info, hope, and speculation ever since then" isn't going to be helpful. :)
Instead, why not focus on the actual intel, the stuff Q found important enough to highlight in the drops. Instead of pointing to Q or Q drops, point to selected intel WITHIN the drops, and them digest it on its own merit. (Esp. since the info can't stand on the reputation of the messenger: he's anonymous!)
At this point Q is a historian. What's important is the (true) history, not the historian.
Great breakdown anon. That took a lot of work. Upvoted!
Another alternative would be to not even mention the person(s) called "Q." Why mention it? (What if they want to look at recent posts? Telling them "Oh, there aren't any! Right after the 2020 election there was nothing else important to share, so he vanished; no one even knows if he's still alive, so we're going on past info, hope, and speculation ever since then" isn't going to be helpful. :)
Instead, why not focus on the actual intel, the stuff Q found important enough to highlight in the drops. Instead of pointing to Q or Q drops, point to selected intel WITHIN the drops, and them digest it on its own merit. (Esp. since the info can't stand on the reputation of the messenger: he's anonymous!)
At this point Q is a historian. What's important is the (true) history, not the historian.