False logic
There is no fault in the logic. Logic takes premises and comes to conclusions through the process of logic. Logic is unambiguous and not subject to interpretation. Flaws in logic are actually quite rare. People are generally pretty logical. What you are arguing is that you disagree with my premises.
Here my premises are that the following statements, in the context of Q, can be interpreted without ambiguity:
You are watching a movie
Enjoy the show
POTUS 100% INSULATED
POTUS IS SAFE.
Protected by PATRIOTS.
Patriots in control.
Trust the Plan
You are saying that they are ambiguous. You have not made your case for that, you have simply made the claim that there is enough ambiguity there that one can interpret them differently.
I assert that is ludicrous in the context of all of Q. They said "Enjoy the show" Eighty Six Times in almost every context imaginable. They explicitly showed, stated, and eluded to their top level control more times than I can count. They EXPLICITLY STATED that POTUS is safe and protected by the Patriots that are in control. They EXPLICITLY STATED that there would be false flags and that POTUS was 100% Insulated:
q326
False flag(s).
POTUS 100% INSULATED.
Expect fireworks.
Over, and over, and over again, they said that things were following a specific plan to drive the narrative of the movie forward to lead to the GA, that we are watching that plan play out in real time as a movie (scripted), and that we *DO NOT HAVE TO WORRY about certain things, like Trump's safety.
Now, if you want to make the case that there is ambiguity there, then make it, but don't call it "False logic," just make your case the best you can. I will listen. Please try to be a little less "philosophically speaking, everything is subject to interpretation" and more showing, with examples, why you think these things in the context of all of Q are subject to interpretation.
False logic
There is no fault in the logic. Logic takes premises and comes to conclusions through the process of logic. Logic is unambiguous and not subject to interpretation. Flaws in logic are actually quite rare. People are generally pretty logical. What you are arguing is that you disagree with my premises.
Here my premises are that the following statements, in the context of Q, can be interpreted without ambiguity:
You are watching a movie
Enjoy the show
POTUS 100% INSULATED
POTUS IS SAFE.
Protected by PATRIOTS.
Patriots in control.
Trust the Plan
You are saying that they are ambiguous. You have not made your case for that, you have simply made the claim that there is enough ambiguity there that one can interpret them differently.
I assert that is ludicrous in the context of all of Q. They said "Enjoy the show" Eighty Six Times in almost every context imaginable. They explicitly showed, stated, and eluded to their top level control more times than I can count. They EXPLICITLY STATED that POTUS is safe and protected by the Patriots that are in control. They EXPLICITLY STATED that there would be false flags and that POTUS was 100% Insulated:
q326
False flag(s).
POTUS 100% INSULATED.
Expect fireworks.
Over, and over, and over again, they said that things were following a specific plan to drive the narrative of the movie forward to lead to the GA, that we are watching that plan play out in real time as a movie (scripted), and that we *DO NOT HAVE TO WORRY about certain things, like Trump's safety.
Now, if you want to make the case that there is ambiguity there, then make it, but don't call it "False logic," just make your case the best you can. I will listen. Please try to be a little less "philosophically speaking, everything is subject to interpretation" and more showing, with examples, why you think things are subject to interpretation.