I appreciate your sincerity. It is rarely in evidence on the boards.

I will answer you point by point. The intent is to be informative as to the stylistics and construction of my posts and comments, not to argue the right or wrong of anyone's point of view.

From your first comment/reply in this thread to PepeSee's comment/reply"

"Yeah, I do wish mods would do better at making sure posts are clear…"

The discussion I and others have had about 'some' moderators is when moderation becomes modulation... and that that is a slippery slope.

So, allowing for all of our individual respective faults by nature, IMO, the more the mods stick to calling balls and strikes, safe or out at 1st base, and letting the players alone to play ball the better the board functions.

From your comment/reply to my query asking what is not clear about the post:

"The reference is to the “headline” of the post. Just wasn’t clear what context the question posed was."

By headline, as you note later in your comment, you are referring to the title of the post. I would quibble some about describing it as a headline (I'm not writing a news article, I am posting an excerpt from a legal document), and if that is how you interpret post titles, as headlines, I would recommend, when you see my username on a post, consider it an invitation to be either informed or entertained, sometimes (as in this instance) both in the post title and post text, and thanks to PepeSee, in the thread as well. Nothing more, nothing less. But you will have to work for it because I will only respond to sincere questions about my posts and comments if it is evident someone has done their homework (read the linked primary source documentation or watched the linked videos, either timestamped for quick viewing, or transcribed to save time if the video segment is long, or of significance even if short).

Review my post history (quite short and not curated) for examples. If that is an issue for you, then when you see my username on a post, just pass it up. No harm, no foul, no disappointment, no frustration.

I have a list of bookmarked usernames I absolutely follow every day, and another list (written) of usernames to avoid like the plague. Just a suggestion. If you know you do not like a genre of film or novel, don't buy a ticket to see something you know you already don't like or buy and read a book you have no interest in. I've checked your impressive comment history, and have no worries that you will misconstrue my words on this.

Moving on to the post title itself:

As Lyndon Johnson use to say, "My fellow Americans, let us reason together."

First there was this... 🤡🌎.

Now, in some ways, if 🤡🌎 does not set the stage for what is about to come, I am near helpless to be of any assistance. "Clown World" and then the copy/paste of the excerpt which is preceded by "10." - which indicates there at least nine more potential 🤡🌎 moments preceding this one. And if that were not enough, the text of item "10." identifying Ron Watkins aka CodeMonkey Z aka Q and attempting to elicit from Mike Lindell who's name is admittedly not in the title of the post (but that is because I only had one more letter space left in the length of letters/words allowed in a post title - but that is neither here nor there) but could be inferred (did you see what I did there) by the reference to the Cyber Symposium which was advertised far and wide as Mike Lindell's Cyber Symposium held in August of 2021 and the attempt to link Mike Lindell to Q (which, not surprisingly, is true, but unprovable at this time by design - a child can see it).

Now, to understand what's going on with Ron Watkins, you would need to have continuity back to his father, Jim Watkins, and the history of 4chan and 8chan, chosen starting at least as far back in 2017 as Q's platform of choice to host his board to which Q drops were posted by Q and extracted by individuals with read/copy but not write access. And you'd need to know about Mike Lindell, PCAPs and the Cyber Symposium, Tina Peters participation in delivering her before and after forensic images of the vote tabulation equipment in Mesa County, Colorado and Ron Watkins / CodeMonkey Z participation in the live stream event when he and other cyber analysts first attempted to evaluate the before and after forensic images that Mike Lindell had flown up with Tina Peters from Colorado the day before to the Cyber Symposium being held in South Dakota. Think I might not have enough space allocation to have put all that in the title to make it clear what the post is about.

What I'm saying is, lurk more, and learn our comms, if you are having trouble getting the message. However, please note that the first two paragraphs of the post text is explicit about the source of the post's title and what question I was researching - who was behind the confiscation of Mike Lindell's phone, was it Eric Coomer and his defamation lawsuit or was it somehow connected to the indictment and criminal charges against Tina Peters in Colorado (which got resolved by a commenter who knew something about the law, federal criminal cases, and warrants), followed by a link and instructions about how to navigate the primary source document to get to the right page to see the excerpted portion of the legal document which constituted the post title, graphically prefixed with 🤡🌎.

From Attachment 1, Exhibit 1, page number 22, item 10. . (Exhibit 1 is composed of multiple separate filings - so disregard text pagination and use overall document page number to locate this extracted item.)

Link Attachment 1 of Main Document 57 filed 28 September 2022 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.215068/gov.uscourts.cod.215068.57.1.pdf

Hoping that the matter below has been satisfactory addressed:

"Just wished that the initial question posed could have been given context up top."

How about, up front... i.e. 🤡🌎.

"Is it an interrogatory posed in a deposition yet to be answered? who is asking the question? what is the question’s context? Where is this question being posed?"

Link Attachment 1 of Main Document 57 filed 28 September 2022 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.215068/gov.uscourts.cod.215068.57.1.pdf

Link Main Document 57 filed 28 September 2022 / Lindell Motion to Stay Discovery https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.215068/gov.uscourts.cod.215068.57.0.pdf

In addition to limited space in the post title block...

What else can I say. Did you check out the links? If you had, I don't think you would have asked the questions you did.

If you did check out the links and still had the questions you did... then when you see my posts in the future, save yourself some time and just pass it up. I won't mind because I will never know.

"First to admit, no expert here, too slow witted and impatient— bad combo. I get it."

Sorry. I've checked your comment history. It is not a matter of being expert in anything, only a matter of making the time to inform yourself of the nuances and details and not the headlines and one line snark comments in the threads. I've checked your comment history. You are sharp as a tack and chomping at the bit is not impatience. Its eagerness. Embrace it.

Time is the issue.

Time is the single most difficult obstacle to overcome. So, if you don't have the time to read the linked primary sources and watch the videos, don't worry about it. But do make a comment in posts or on threads that contain lots of links and background information on events you are unfamiliar with, a comment that you can use a bookmark in your history to get back to that post or thread, like when Tina Peters sits for her deposition on November 7th or when discovery is allowed in the Coomer lawsuit, and you will have a quick reference back to one or two places where you can get back into contact with source docs and data and come up to speed on a subject quickly at some point when you have the time.

So when those events occur, instead searching the internet trying to figure out what's up, or relying on second or third hand regurgitated analysis, use your comment bookmarks back to those posts and comments with links to original sources. That kind of footnoting and documenting marks the better posts and comments on the site (sounds like self aggrandizing but its my opinion.)

"BUT…consider the new site visitor looking for something solid and substancial coming across a typical forum post."

Check my post and comment history (recent comment history is a little crowded with some long transcriptions from Mike Lindell speeches and video interviews - scan past them when you hit them.) Capturing, transcribing, analyzing some of the highlights of the day to day events that are speeding by is what I do. This train is not stopping or slowing down for any of us. I got on in 2016. My advice is to jump on and keep up with what is happening today and look ahead to where events seem to be heading. Lurk and learn and when you identify posters and comments you trust, follow their posts and comments. You can learn a lot by observing how some of the older users crack nuts and go down rabbit holes.

Do this... id a username to follow, click on it and view their comment page / history page. Save that URL to your bookmarks, and you can easily check them as often as your time permits...

Here is one of the guys I follow...

https://greatawakening.win/u/MAGAdeburger/

Watch who he follows and then watch who that guy follows, and pretty soon you will be cutting through 90% of the bullshit on GAW.

"Though this be madness, yet there is method in't" (Hamlet Act II. scene ii.)

"But if the “title” or “headline” doesn’t make it clear why someone should be interested in investing such a scare resource as their time, a potential new anon could be lost."

There are anons and there are anons. Q, in the beginning of his post cycle, was pretty harsh with people who would comment on the boards that they "didn't get it" and "why don't you just tell us the answer," or, exactly what you wrote. I won't pretend to know how Q would respond to you at this time, but back in the day it was literally,
. u/#q2134 .
and that the only easy day was yesterday.

"IMO these types of posts being “featured” really need to be looked over by a third set of eyes. If it’s to be featured, the poster should consider distilling to its very essence, break it down into more easily digestible bites of text. Back in the day, an editor would help the writer discern their intent and help them make it more clear to the time-pressed. Too bad those days are long gone. I miss ‘em."

IMO if these types of posts do not appeal to you, pass them by. Square pegs and round holes, and all that...

"I personally don’t mind reading docs. Not clear at the outset exactly what’s going on here so would really appreciate any help the big brains can provide to us ‘tards."

How about reading the docs first, and then if it is not clear ask for clarification. PepeSee's posted comments about Coomer and the DUI were 100% fabrication, he did not watch the entire video and just made a comment to hear his own voice (read his own words, but you know what I mean). If you are not wiling to first read the documents and then ask questions if you are not clear, you will also be missing the opportunity to inform yourself, on your terms, about what is going on, what is relevant, and won't need anyone to explain things to you.

Do you just want to know things or do you want to understand things? You will not understand if what you know is what someone else told you what it is or is not important to know.

I will leave you with this advice.

Gregg Phillips is constantly admonishing people following him over on Truth Social that...

"Everything Is An Information Operation."

Take that to heart and things will be a whole lot less frustrating and a whole lot more comprehendible.

Endeavor to persevere.

What is not clear about the post?