So we know Q likes mind games and alluding to things. Think logical. So I got to thinking based on some information I have regarding certain...groups.
What I noticed is that there is a tendency in said groups to bypass restrictions on secrecy by asking tangential questions to the one you wish to divulge with. In this process the recipient of the question is expected to deduce logically what the truth is. This allows the sharer to shield themselves with "I didn't tell them. They figured it out" and the information gets shared. Personally, I think it's childish logic, but if that's how it's done in Rome, that's how it's done in Rome.
My point here is that Q operates almost EXACTLY the same way with many questions. It really triggered* my autism-level pattern recognition when I first noticed it. As a result, I think there's high chance that Q is at least in the orbit of such groups (assuming it's not a red herring).
What this means for my original point is that there are likely two tiers to this process. Obviously, if you share secrets through a Socratic method, your peers will eventually get mad, but maybe overlook it due to norms. However, if you share something truly sensitive, they're going to ding you anyways. Excuses be damned.
In other words, there are the things you can allude to, and the things you can absolutely never refer to. This is my theory.
So that end, I'm wondering if anyone has done a deep dive of things Q has explicitly avoided talking about or answering in situations where it seemed odd or out of place. We're ideally talking moments where Q would be talking in relation to a subject, a question may get asked, and Q either ignores it outright or deflects in some fashion (like not actually addressing it). These will be tells of something Q cannot talk about.
I know this will invite a lot of galactic-level weirdness, but we're mature enough to filter for that, right? We're looking at something more down-to-earth, less Alex Jones inter-dimensional demons and lizard people.
Think of it like "blind spots" in the Q narrative. What's hiding in the darkness? What was missed?
Important to note that Q could not violate the law by disclosing classified information. Instead, he posed the information in the form of a question. This provides legal cover. Hidden within many of these questions , once thoroughly investigated, would and does uncover many subject matters you might suggest were not mentioned. By example, even though not formed as a question, “watch the wives”
My post kind of highlights exactly that but asks the inverse: what trail of logic was avoided by Q entirely?
If you start connecting all of the data points Q pointed out, one leads to another which leads to more and a "web" starts to appear if you represent this visually.
However, these aren't the only data points. My question here is if you follow that these areas he covered are "lit up" then what are the areas he avoided that he reasonably should have explored given the topic?
This could be seen as a "dark to light" sort of approach. "Think mirror" could be exactly that. Q itself was leading us in one direction, which was productive, but the other side of the coin was the real reveal.
Maybe this question was too esoteric, but I felt it was worth a shot.
In true Anon fashion... always leads us to this question we ask ourselves "WTF?" lok