And maybe its not. How does the speculation help if it cannot be reinforced with reason?

I'm rather concerned that in some degrees, the rigorous mental discipline and hard analytical reason-based thinking that the Q operation focused on has become subordinate to a speculative, emotionally gratifying (for some) pseudo-religious approach that takes signs and symbols (by which I mean perceived phenomena, not 'symbology') and makes them the object of faith leaning towards dogma.

"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.

Direct Q quote. Here, 'revelation' might be understood as 'subjective inspiration', as Q clearly has never negated the revelatory nature of scripture.

How does one maintain the philosophical viewpoint that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism?

Looking at anything Q, and the larger narrative war as a whole, should be about pursuing and formulating positions regarding truth (aka what one accepts as 'truth') by applying those practices and avoiding just believing in stuff because "hey, maybe (nice feeling!)"

I mean, our engagement with the ideas we think should lead somewhere. Where does the idea that "maybe its a comm for someone other than anons" lead?

Just asking, as (as I previously mentioned) devil's avocado.