I don't think we're actually disagreeing on what Q is. We're just using different words to describe the same thing.

You call Q a primer. I call it a hypothesis. In both contexts, we're just talking about a question that is posed for potential research. The difference is exactly what you and I both said:

That's the entire point. Q asks the question already knowing the answer.

You believe Q already has proven the truth, and "research" is just you re-discovering the truth that Q did.

THAT is how you fall victim to confirmation bias. You assume that you "know" the answer, even if you don't know exactly how to get to the answer. And then you find a path to the answer by following the questions Q asks.

Q has convinced you that this is research.

I just see this as bread-and-butter confirmation bias.

Q people are excellent at identifying potential areas of risk. You guys can cast doubt on anything. You guys can find the loopholes and the vulnerabilities. That is a useful skill. Q people would make excellent defense attorneys, because casting doubt is the name of the game.

But even though you insist that this research has been done by Q believers, every time I ask for it, I get told, "Go look for yourself. Do your own research."

As if the point of research isn't to share your findings with other people.

Have Q researchers uncovered primary source documents that prove regular civilian therapists are brainwashing people into mass murder?

I'm not talking about proving that MKUltra existed and then sliding down a slippery slope with it. Again, that's just proving the POSSIBILITY. It's a hypothesis.

"What if rank-and-file therapists were doing MKUltra-style brainwashings on random civilians to turn them into mass shooters?"

Q asked the question. So where is the proof that the Q community came up with? Can you show me how the Q researchers proved that Q's hypothesis that your average civilian therapist is responsible for brainwashing your average civilian into doing crazy, politically-motivated violence?

I don't think we're actually disagreeing on what Q is. We're just using different words to describe the same thing.

You call Q a primer. I call it a hypothesis. In both contexts, we're just talking about a question that is posed for potential research. The difference is exactly what you and I both said:

That's the entire point. Q asks the question already knowing the answer.

You believe Q already has proven the truth, and "research" is just you re-discovering the truth that Q did.

THAT is how you fall victim to confirmation bias. You assume that you "know" the answer, even if you don't know exactly how to get to the answer. And then you find a path to the answer by following the questions Q asks.

Q has convinced you that this is research.

I just see this as bread-and-butter confirmation bias.

Q people are excellent at identifying potential areas of risk. You guys can cast doubt on anything. You guys can find the loopholes and the vulnerabilities. That is a useful skill. Q people would make excellent defense attorneys, because casting doubt is the name of the game.

But even though you insist that this research has been done by Q believers, every time I ask for it, I get told, "Go look for yourself. Do your own research."

As if the point of research isn't to share your findings with other people.

Have Q researchers uncovered primary source documents that prove regular civilian therapists are brainwashing people into mass murder?

I'm not talking about proving that MKUltra existed and then sliding down a slippery slope with it. Again, that's just proving the POSSIBILITY. It's a hypothesis.

"What if rank-and-file therapists were doing MKUltra-style brainwashings on random civilians to turn them into mass shooters?"

Q asked the question. So where is the proof that the Q community came up with? Can you show me how the Q researchers proved that Q's hypothesis that your average civilian therapist is responsible for brainwashing your average civilian into doing crazy, politically-motivated violence?

I don't think we're actually disagreeing on what Q is. We're just using different words to describe the same thing.

You call Q a primer. I call it a hypothesis. In both contexts, we're just talking about a question that is posed for potential research. The difference is exactly what you and I both said:

That's the entire point. Q asks the question already knowing the answer.

You believe Q already has proven the truth, and "research" is just you re-discovering the truth that Q did.

THAT is how you fall victim to confirmation bias. You assume that you "know" the answer, even if you don't know exactly how to get to the answer. And then you find a path to the answer by following the questions Q asks.

Q has convinced you that this is research.

I just see this as bread-and-butter confirmation bias.

Q people are excellent at identifying potential areas of risk. You guys can cast doubt on anything. You guys can find the loopholes and the vulnerabilities. That is a useful skill. Q people would make excellent defense attorneys, because casting doubt is the name of the game.

But even though you insist that this research has been done by Q believers, every time I ask for it, I get told, "Go look for yourself. Do your own research."

As if the point of research isn't to share your findings with other people.

Have Q researchers uncovered primary source documents that prove regular civilian therapists are brainwashing people into mass murder?

I'm not talking about proving that MKUltra existed. Again, that's just proving the POSSIBILITY. It's a hypothesis. "What if rank-and-file therapists were doing MKUltra-style brainwashings on random civilians to turn them into mass shooters?"

Q asked the question. So where is the proof that the Q community came up with? Can you show me how the Q researchers proved that Q's hypothesis that your average civilian therapist is responsible for brainwashing your average civilian into doing crazy, politically-motivated violence?

I don't think we're actually disagreeing on what Q is. We're just using different words to describe the same thing.

You call Q a primer. I call it a hypothesis. In both contexts, we're just talking about a question that is posed for potential research. The difference is exactly what you and I both said:

That's the entire point. Q asks the question already knowing the answer.

You believe Q already has proven the truth, and "research" is just you re-discovering the truth that Q did.

THAT is how you fall victim to confirmation bias. You assume that you "know" the answer, even if you don't know exactly how to get to the answer. And then you find a path to the answer by following the questions Q asks.

Q has convinced you that this is research.

I just see this as bread-and-butter confirmation bias.

Q people are excellent at identifying potential areas of risk. You guys can cast doubt on anything. You guys can find the loopholes and the vulnerabilities. That is a useful skill. Q people would make excellent defense attorneys, because casting doubt is the name of the game.

But even though you insist that this research has been done by Q believers, every time I ask for it, I get told, "Go look for yourself. Do your own research."

As if the point of research isn't to share your findings with other people.

Have Q researchers uncovered primary source documents that prove therapists are brainwashing people?

I'm not talking about proving that MKUltra existed. Again, that's just proving the POSSIBILITY. It's a hypothesis. "What if rank-and-file therapists were doing MKUltra-style brainwashings on random civilians to turn them into mass shooters?"

Q asked the question. So where is the proof that the Q community came up with? Can you show me how the Q researchers proved that Q's hypothesis that your average civilian therapist is responsible for brainwashing your average civilian into doing crazy, politically-motivated violence?

I don't think we're actually disagreeing on what Q is. We're just using different words to describe the same thing.

You call Q a primer. I call it a hypothesis. In both contexts, we're just talking about a question that is posed for potential research. The difference is exactly what you and I both said:

That's the entire point. Q asks the question already knowing the answer.

You believe Q already has proven the truth, and "research" is just you re-discovering the truth that Q did.

THAT is how you fall victim to confirmation bias. You assume that you "know" the answer, even if you don't know exactly how to get to the answer. And then you find a path to the answer by following the questions Q asks.

Q has convinced you that this is research.

I just see this as bread-and-butter confirmation bias.

Q people are excellent at identifying potential areas of risk. You guys can cast doubt on anything. You guys can find the loopholes and the vulnerabilities.

But even though you insist that this research has been done by Q believers, every time I ask for it, I get told, "Go look for yourself. Do your own research."

As if the point of research isn't to share your findings with other people.

Have Q researchers uncovered primary source documents that prove therapists are brainwashing people?

I'm not talking about proving that MKUltra existed. Again, that's just proving the POSSIBILITY. It's a hypothesis. "What if rank-and-file therapists were doing MKUltra-style brainwashings on random civilians to turn them into mass shooters?"

Q asked the question. So where is the proof that the Q community came up with? Can you show me how the Q researchers proved that Q's hypothesis that your average civilian therapist is responsible for brainwashing your average civilian into doing crazy, politically-motivated violence?