Thx for those who shared the non-paywall link. I gave this a read out of curiosity. Thanks OP for the original share. Some of my takeaways:

1. Article claims that Q hasn't posted since Dec 2020. Incorrect. https://qalerts.app/. Last post Nov 2022.

2. Article suggests Paul Furber (South African) and Ron Watkins (American) are Q. Highly unlikely.

3. Article author went above and beyond and then some with the movement being "toxic", "conspiracies", "debunked" and "alleged". Translation: They are still petrified of the movement.

It has been almost a year since a Q post. With everything going on and so much MSM angst over "Qanon", I will say it would be nice to get another drop fairly soon, but I also understand the movie playing out in front of us and to watch it closely.

The lame stream media is behind Qanon. We are not Qanons. We are Anons and Q is Q.

I was watching a documentary about the zodiac killer, and their use of linguistic analysis in that case, and how it was used to identify Q, so I searched for the article they mentioned, and came to the linked NY Times article. I search through the archives here and didn't see the article linked in the past. The comments to the article are pretty funny, but what are the thoughts of all you "anons" on this article?

Hate pay walls. I refuse to pay them. Sorry to disappoint you

https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/high-tech/la-stylometrie-a-la-recherche-de-q-le-mysterieux-internaute-a-l-origine-du-mouvement-conspirationniste-qanon_161694

https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/Gerald-Mcmenamin/113000062?sort=pub-date

https://web.archive.org/web/20230325104906/http://www.orphanalytics.com/en/news/qanon-in-2022

https://web.archive.org/web/20221017062813/http://www.orphanalytics.com/en/news/whitepaper202201/OA_QAnon-whpap2022-02.pdf

The bottom link is probably the one you want if you're actually curious about their analysis.

The problems with their analysis are painfully obvious, however. They only consider six "suspects", and they basically pick the ones out of the six that seem most similar.

They don't take into account Trump, Scavino, Flynn, Watnick, and others that are equally or more plausibly involved. They don't take into account the photos Q takes or the close relationship the Q posts have to POTUS' activities. The wide breadth of info Q relays to us strongly indicates some level of team effort. Instead they focus on the board operators--who certainly have the power to monkey with the drops--but would rapidly be found out.

I think it's worth linguistically analyzing the posts and seeing how Q team's motivations, style, and priorities shifted over time and in response to events and the public's capacity.

Academia continues to disappoint.

...gibberish

One new drop. Just one word. "Hi."

Remember this Q post; 'Wait until you find out who's been talking to you, here...'

Comments are pretty funny

“ smartalek boston ma Feb. 20, 2022 NYT readers are a motley agglomeration -- I'm one, after all - -but they are, overall, a generally educated and accomplished cohort, so I'm more than confident there are some practicing clinicians in this audience. I am speaking to all of you. For the sake of the nation, I beg you to set aside for the moment all the usual blather abt the propriety of delivering diagnoses absent a formal, face-to-face interview and the standard batteries of tests (the stakes are clearly way too high for such luxuries) and just tell us if our intuitive suspicions (because I bloody well know I'm not the only one harboring them) are correct -- that these people are certifiable? That a substantial fraction of our populace, not to mention the bulk of our presently most powerful political party, are being led and directed by a couple of outright lunatics? Anyone? Bueller?”

Hmmmm. I posted this about 10 pm last night, and at about 1am, Flynn tweets out his "Q has done a disservice" message. Coincidence?