You often insist on a single possible interpretation to Q's questions without definitively showing me why I should rule out anything else. "Because it agrees with the mainstream news stories" is not ever a logical reason to simply dismiss an assertion, nor is it ever a logical reason to simply accept it. Every claim must be examined.

I can think of a million reasons why someone would take Russian, especially if they have any aspirations to serve in the government, in the military, in business, etc. Literally anyone who might interact with someone across borders would consider learning Russian a valuable skill.

I took Russian in college because I was bored of taking Spanish in high school. I knew there was always someone around who could speak Spanish, so Russian would be a valuable skill.

Why did Obama choose Renegade? Well, the whole family needed to start with the same letter, as is tradition. So the White House Communications Agency (which is staffed by the military) offered him a selection that started with R.

Let's assume just the sparkliest of intents for a moment. You don't see any non-suspicious reasons that Obama could identify as "Renegade"?

Not coming up and beating Clinton against all odds? Not for becoming the first black President? There's nothing about what he apparently accomplished that might explain this choice?

I don't find "he speaks a scary language" or "using a code name I don't like" to be a convincing argument for casting suspicious eyes. I understand that for you, it's simply a small part of the pile you think proves your case, but because I'm trying to examine each argument as it's presented and not simply accept or reject anything, I am evaluating each small piece of the pile.

Scientists aren't convinced there is a pile of anything until they have verified that each piece of that pile actually exists and agree that there are enough verified pieces to constitute a "pile" under a reasonable definition. I'm still working on that with your Q interpretations.

You often insist on a single possible interpretation to Q's questions without definitively showing me why I should rule out anything else. "Because it agrees with the mainstream news stories" is not ever a logical reason to simply dismiss an assertion, nor is it ever a logical reason to simply accept it. Every claim must be examined.

I can think of a million reasons why someone would take Russian, especially if they have any aspirations to serve in the government, in the military, in business, etc. Literally anyone who might interact with someone across borders would consider learning Russian a valuable skill.

I took Russian in college because I was bored of taking Spanish in high school.

Why did Obama choose Renegade? Well, the whole family needed to start with the same letter, as is tradition. So the White House Communications Agency (which is staffed by the military) offered him a selection that started with R.

Let's assume just the sparkliest of intents for a moment. You don't see any non-suspicious reasons that Obama could identify as "Renegade"?

Not coming up and beating Clinton against all odds? Not for becoming the first black President? There's nothing about what he apparently accomplished that might explain this choice?

I don't find "he speaks a scary language" or "using a code name I don't like" to be a convincing argument for casting suspicious eyes. I understand that for you, it's simply a small part of the pile you think proves your case, but because I'm trying to examine each argument as it's presented and not simply accept or reject anything, I am evaluating each small piece of the pile.

Scientists aren't convinced there is a pile of anything until they have verified that each piece of that pile actually exists and agree that there are enough verified pieces to constitute a "pile" under a reasonable definition. I'm still working on that with your Q interpretations.