>>11191053 , >>11191055 There is Q and there are anons. There is no QAnon (lb)

I sort of feel like this is a big misunderstanding.

See, we called Q "Qanon" a little in the beginning, hence "qanon.pub", which went up to aggregate the drops within a few months of the drops beginning.

We've had nypdanon, fbianon, autoinsideranon, holywoodanon, lavanon and so many more frens that dropped by to feed us info and we never had an issue with that spiraling out of control.

I think the real issue was when people started calling anons "Qanons", not so much Q being called Qanon, which was always an interchangeable term.

Maybe we're on the verge of pedantry here though.