Whether or not Q wanted to be called Qanon doesnt factor in to the decisionmaking process for editors of these magazines articles. It's like saying "we know the Bible is divinely inspired because the Apostle Paul says so".
To a nonbeliever that makes no difference. Q let us know there is no Qanon so we can easily identify the hit pieces coming out,not because he wanted us to shriek "there is no qanon" every time another article pops out
I'm not arguing with you in particular. If this was the only post announcing the distinction I wouldnt care. This just gets posted and reposted and I dont know why. The people who know the difference already know and the people making the mistake dont care.
This is correct on a technicality that I dont think needs to be amplified at the level it has been.
Whether or not Q wanted to be called Qanon doesnt factor in to the decisionmaking process for editors of these magazines articles. It's like saying "we know the Bible is divinely inspired because the Apostle Paul says so".
To a nonbeliever that makes no difference. Q let us know there is no Qanon so we can easily identify the hit pieces coming out,not because he wanted us to shriek "there is no qanon" every time another article pops out
Agreed, no need to shriek - then again, no need to defend it either. Your post seemed to do just that, IMO.
You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with Q.
I'm not arguing with you in particular. If this was the only post announcing the distinction I wouldnt care. This just gets posted and reposted and I dont know why. The people who know the difference already know and the people making the mistake dont care.
This is correct on a technicality that I dont think needs to be amplified at the level it has been.