It’s not that I believe Q is a LARP so much as that I can’t disprove it as a LARP, and I generally avoid believing things until I have proof that I should. It’s the only way to avoid fake news.

So I’m not sure that you understand the difficulty of the question you’re asking.

There is no smoking gun proof, or anything really claiming to be smoking gun proof. Q is not allegedly proven by big, discrete pieces of proof.

Rather, the argument is that Q is proven by a web of associations by small, almost imperceptible truths which you believe can paint no other picture when seen at a distance than to prove Q.

So what it seems like you’re asking for is either the most compelling piece of microscopic proof which on its own would mean nothing anyway, or you’re asking for which constellation of microscopic proofs that, when taken together, paint a compelling picture of Q if you accept all the individual pieces as true, which I’ve established hasn’t happened to me yet.

So it’s a tough question to answer. Because you guys synthesize theories from a bunch of tiny pieces and pointing to any one of them as unconvincing isn’t really useful to answer you.

I will think on it today and see if there’s a worthwhile answer I can provide. But the nature of Q proofs makes it far more challenging to do so than any traditional proofing.

EDIT: Okay, we can probably talk about the Georgia “ballots from suitcases” video if you’d like, but even though I have a bad habit of getting sucked into longer conversations than I intend, I do have some other stuff to do today. If you don’t hear from me on this soon, remind me.

It’s not that I believe Q is a LARP so much as that I can’t disprove it as a LARP, and I generally avoid believing things until I have proof that I should. It’s the only way to avoid fake news.

So I’m not sure that you understand the difficulty of the question you’re asking.

There is no smoking gun proof, or anything really claiming to be smoking gun proof. Q is not allegedly proven by big, discrete pieces of proof.

Rather, the argument is that Q is proven by a web of associations by small, almost imperceptible truths which you believe can paint no other picture when seen at a distance than to prove Q.

So what it seems like you’re asking for is either the most compelling piece of microscopic proof which on its own would mean nothing anyway, or you’re asking for which constellation of microscopic proofs that, when taken together, paint a compelling picture of Q if you accept all the individual pieces as true, which I’ve established hasn’t happened to me yet.

So it’s a tough question to answer. Because you guys synthesize theories from a bunch of tiny pieces and pointing to any one of them as unconvincing isn’t really useful to answer you.

I will think on it today and see if there’s a worthwhile answer I can provide. But the nature of Q proofs makes it far more challenging to do so than any traditional proofing.