Posing a lot of questions with no clear answers is not a method for conveying information. It is a method for showcasing ambiguity. It is putting you on an Easter egg hunt...where you get to pick out your own Easter eggs. For some of you, it is good enough to get you tuned into a shared delusion of conspiracy. But all the conspiracy allegations about the Titanic ultimately crash and burn at the feet of the confirmed facts. Maybe the point of the exercise is not to get invested in fabulous conspiracy theories? Maybe it is enough to see what is in front of us? And that is more real than diving down a rabbit hole? (How do we learn to avoid the paranoid insanity of endless conspiracy and "No coincidence!"?)
It has lately come to my thinking that whenever Q dangles conspiracy bait like this, it is really a test to see if we can do the research to realize that it is just a bogus story. I've done that research, and it is a bogus story. A lot of people here just ran with the fable.
Posing a lot of questions with no clear answers is not a method for conveying information. It is a method for showcasing ambiguity. It is putting you on an Easter egg hunt...where you get to pick out your own Easter eggs. For some of you, it is good enough to get you tuned into a shared delusion of conspiracy. But all the conspiracy allegations about the Titanic ultimately crash and burn at the feet of the confirmed facts. Maybe the point of the exercise is not to get invested in fabulous conspiracy theories? Maybe it is enough to see what is in front of us? And that is more real than diving down a rabbit hole? (How do we learn to avoid the paranoid insanity of endless conspiracy and "No coincidence!"?)
It has lately come to my thinking that whenever Q dangles conspiracy bait like this, it is really a test to see if we can do the research to realize that it is just a bogus story. I've done that research, and it is a bogus story. A lot of people here just ran with the fable.