No one is arguing against the message or principal behind any Q drop. You're using that as a strawman argument in favor of MegaAnon against a very plebeian source I shared.
Are we to expect the general public to not defaultly refer to Q as Qanon given the fact the MSM campaign (among others) socially engineered the incorrect nomenclature of the Q phenomenon?
Furthermore, the article I shared isn't against the veracity of the Q drops. Solely MegaAnon. By comparison it gives legitimate credence to the Q drops VS MegaAnon posts.
Let's use a completely hypothetical yet similar example: Random pundit puts out an article in favor of Q's legitimacy compared to MegaAnon but incorrectly uses the "Qanon" moniker. So that automatically makes the article null?
No one is arguing against the message or principal behind any Q drop. You're using that as a strawman argument in favor of MegaAnon against a very plebeian source I shared.
Are we to expect the general public to not defaultly refer to Q as Qanon given the fact the MSM campaign (among others) socially engineered the incorrect nomenclature of the Q phenomenon?
Furthermore, the article I shared isn't against the veracity of the Q drops. Solely MegaAnon. By comparison it gives legitimate credence to the Q drops VS MegaAnon posts.
Let's use a completely hypothetical yet similar example: Random pundit puts out an article in favor of Q's legitimacy compared to MegaAnon but incorrectly uses the "Qanon" moniker. So that automatically makes the article null?