While I agree that nothing should be trusted, having doubts that are unreasonable does not aid in sound decision making. You have presented "doubts" that I do not consider reasonable.
To start, if Q can be compromised in such a way as to have fake posts, without an immediate official Q statement proving such, then either:
- Q never had control, which is to say, Q is not MI and/or has no real power AKA Q is a LARP
- Q has been removed as a player, no longer has control, and we are rightly FUBAR.
It is ludicrous to think that a Q in control would allow for unauthorized Q posts without immediately letting the world know that the trip code was compromised.
Your "evidence" of Scavino:
I'm not 100% sure who Baby Fist is but from what I understand, it was the name of someone that was able to dupe some anons into thinking it was Q
This is a line of nothing. If you think there is something there, then you will have to provide actual evidence and not pure speculation based on literally nothing.
Your "evidence" of Watkins:
Literally nothing Watkins says or does has any relevance to anything Q. Ron Watkins is at best a random Anon, just like the rest of us, and at worst Controlled Opposition. WHATEVER he posts, anywhere, at any time, cannot be used as "proof" of anything.
Skepticism is healthy, even essential, and should never be removed from the investigative process. I suggest that nothing should ever be trusted, as it is the opposite of Critical Thinking. Having said that, doubts must be reasonable (i.e. based on reason) and not barely coherent "I think I heard a rumor once." Creating such speculative doubts only detracts from investigation.
While I agree that nothing should be trusted, having doubts that are unreasonable does not aid in sound decision making. You have presented "doubts" that I do not consider reasonable.
To start, if Q can be compromised in such a way as to have fake posts, without an immediate official Q statement proving such, then either:
- Q never had control, which is to say, Q is not MI and/or has no real power AKA Q is a LARP
- Q has been removed as a player, no longer has control, and we are rightly FUBAR.
It is ludicrous to think that a Q in control would allow for unauthorized Q posts without immediately letting the world know that the trip code was compromised.
Your "evidence" of Scavino:
I'm not 100% sure who Baby Fist is but from what I understand, it was the name of someone that was able to dupe some anons into thinking it was Q
This is a line of nothing. If you think there is something there, then you will have to provide actual evidence and not pure speculation based on literally nothing.
Your "evidence" of Watkins:
Literally nothing Watkins says or does has any relevance to anything Q. Ron Watkins is at best a random Anon, just like the rest of us, and at worst Controlled Opposition. WHATEVER he posts, anywhere, at any time, cannot be used as "proof" of anything.
Skepticism is healthy, even essential and should never be removed from the investigative process. I suggest that nothing should ever be trusted, as it is the opposite of Critical Thinking. Having said that, doubts must be reasonable (i.e. based on reason) and not barely coherent "I think I heard a rumor once." Creating such speculative doubts only detracts from investigation.
While I agree that nothing should be trusted, having doubts that are unreasonable does not aid in sound decision making. You have presented "doubts" that I do not consider reasonable.
To start, if Q can be compromised in such a way as to have fake posts, without an immediate official Q statement proving such, then either:
- Q never had control, which is to say, Q is not MI and/or has no real power AKA Q is a LARP
- Q has been removed as a player, no longer has control, and we are rightly FUBAR.
It is ludicrous to think that a Q in control would allow for unauthorized Q posts without immediately letting the world know that the trip code was compromised.
Your "evidence" of Scavino:
I'm not 100% sure who Baby Fist is but from what I understand, it was the name of someone that was able to dupe some anons into thinking it was Q
This is a line of nothing. If you think there is something there, then you will have to provide actual evidence and not pure speculation based on literally nothing.
Your "evidence" of Watkins:
Literally nothing Watkins says or does has any relevance to anything Q. Ron Watkins is at best a random Anon, just like the rest of us, and at worst Controlled Opposition. WHATEVER he posts, anywhere, at any time, cannot be used as "proof" of anything.