If youve been reading Q since Oct 2017, you know what I mean
Edit to clarify--what I mean is there is a Q way of speaking and this lacks it.
Ok eg this stood out immediately: Use your logic
Tell me why this is not Q like
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (253)
sorted by:
There has been at least one sort of AI analytic run over all the Q posts looking at diction, verbiage used, sentence structure, timestamps on posts, whats cited and how it is cited and the other properties indicating a leak of tones, characteristics etc of specific people behind the postings. It concluded that there were multiple people posting under the Q moniker. Which given the importance of the operation ought always have been the assumption - an elite team under perhaps a rotating-shifts sort of work schedule rather than a single person that is also a single point of failure.
If thats still the case now, or new people have joined the ranks, I wouldn't be surprised. Nor would it indicate a compromise of the mission if so.
I think most reading Q since beginning understood Q to be a team. The team varied in tone, but some things were consistent. This possibly fits wiithin that, I totally can see that as possible. But it lacks that still, and could just be bc of a long hiatus.
Yeah I guess that is why I dont put much stock in the tone thing and wont spend time on that aspect of it.....
Suspect we will know with strong confidence either way before long though...
But that's one reason why there has to be solid re-verification, especially after such a gap
I remember that. If I recall correctly somebody was trying to figure out who Q really was and they did some analysis and said it pointed to 2 different people, but they didn't specify who. sauce