After almost two years of not posting, we have a few "new" Q posts. There were a few in June and then the recent one.
These posts are without deltas that I'm aware of, meaning Trump didn't coordinate with these Q posts by posting a minute after Q's post.
These posts seem to come and go like they make no difference at all. They're an afterthought, after we've all been in the frontlines researching about Ukraine entirely on our own for months if not years, asking these basic questions like "What groups are financing Ukraine?" comes off as almost an insult.
The pacing makes little to no sense. 3 posts in June, but nothing for a year and a half prior? 3 posts in June, but nothing else through November? You would think, if there's only going to be 4 posts in almost 2 years, that they would at least have substance to them.
On the heels of the June posts there was alot of drama questioning whether the new Q posts were legitimate. From what I recall, people accused Jim Watkins of changing the salt for generating tripcodes, locking Q out. There were some posts (without tripcodes) of sequential deltas where posts were coordinated with Trump posting, and then this individual who established the deltas claimed the board was compromised and Q was locked out.
Common sense would dictate that if Q hadn't post in 2 years, the plan called for stopping all communication (perhaps something to do with laws of war). Another reason to not post at all in years is we already have everything and Q's communication with us came to an end. Why then are there 4 new posts? They don't fit.
Q is fully able to confirm themselves beyond a shadow of doubt. Their tripcode was compromised in the past, they reaffirmed themselves with sequential photos over North Korea, sequential to prior ones posted. They can confirm themselves with deltas -- it's literally the simplest thing to do in the world. Right now, Trump is confirming past Q posts like there's no tomorrow (like the recent one saying "plus" three times with a delta of a Q post with three +++ in it).
Confirmation is easy to come by and handed out like candy by Trump.
But not Q. No deltas. No confirmations. No explanation why gone so long other than "had to be this way", but then skipping many months between June and November -- why did that pause have to "be that way"? What special thing happened between June and November allowed Q to post in June but then skip 5 months to post again?
I don't believe the current Q posts from June onward are actually Q, and I won't until there's at least a delta or another proof offered.
Ok. Apologies. Yawn might seem condescending. I didn't intend it that way, but anyway.
I didn't intend to block of productive conversation or discussion either. However, for me, I notice that all your comments are stated as if fact. No real indication of speculation, as far as I can see. Did I say shut up? No, you're reading into something that's not there.
I met what I perceived as your apparent firm and unshakeable conviction that your viewpoint is correct and factual with what I think are reasonable and reasoned points.
if you are offended, again, i apologize, and I would be quite open and interested to hear any speculation, reasoning and ideas about the topic .... unless they are stated as incontrovertible facts. That. well, I'd say the same: that approach closes off any real discussion.
Expressions like "I think...", "it seems to me...", "as far as I can see....", "I believe..." all admit to fallibility and an openness to discussion.
"They haven't.... They have to...." imply you actually think that is a fact.
Anyway, that's how I see it. If you want to discuss, we can. Text is often a VERY limited medium. Sometimes one has to work at establishing a common communication wavelength. Are you willing?
You're insult doesn't hurt, because I know it's certainly not true.
But I'll also speculate the true is NOT the same for you. So, why don;t we attempt to actually understand each other instead of reacting and calling each other names?
Fair enough. I don't usually lose my cool like that and I am always open for discussion.
I was raised to avoid "weasel words" in speaking and writing. Words like 'I think', 'It appears to me', just my opinion' and 'I believe' are weasel words and as I was taught are an unnecessary waste of time for your reader or listener. Make your assertion clearly and unequivocally. Explain your assertion in like manner. Your reader (or listener) will decide the merit of your offering.
As we were discussing an unknowable point (whether or not the latest Q posts are in fact from the same Q) I did not see the need to point out that my assertion was based in opinion and not fact.
My view is simply this: the latest Q posts are not from the same Q team. I have expected that the Cabal would attempt to post as Q and hijack the movement at some point if their attacks on 'QAnon' failed. I expect this simply because it is a logical step to take. Given that the board was shown to have been compromised and the new posts were shown to have been manipulated coupled with the stark change in tone, polish and content I find it very difficult to imagine they are legitimate.
I am of like mind to you in that I see no reason at all to change course from this view however, if they are real, good. If they are false, fine. But at this point it doesn't really matter. If 'Q' starts pushing DeSantis 2024, then I'll know for sure.
Just my opinion, for what its worth, your mileage may vary.
Thank you Cardinalix!
I appreciate the comeback, and in particular the explanation of your approach to discussion. "Weasel words"!!!! Kek! I guess it's certainly true that some folks can use these to weasel!
So glad to have some increased clarity on this. As I mentioned in the last response, sometimes (more often than not) it takes time and effort to build a common communication wavelength, <weasel> in my opinion </weasel>.
Sorry. kek. Couldn't resist!
I haven't done any particularly deep digging on the "compromised" premise, but on my part, I encountered nothing at the recent "Q" foray in June that convinced me that the "compromised" theories were true or of consequence. But information overload has taken its toll; perhaps I was simply not paying enough attention. That said, I have to question the "it has been shown" re: board, re: manipulated, and as I said before, the "stark change in tone, polish and content" angle I find less than convincing.
Kek. It would be a real flip for Q to start pushing DeSantis.... Don't see that happening unless DJT himself came out and did that! But time will tell.
I think your opinion is well worth considering. I don't reject the view out of hand.
I guess I would say that my position is strongly neutral, slightly pro. By which I mean, without further clear evidence, I am resistant to a position that rejects the drops as being illegitimate, but also cautious and uncommitted to a position that accepts them as definitely legitimate.
To wit: I watch and wait. Requires more data, reflection on context, and observation of things as yet unshown.
Thanks again for the reply!