>>12165133 lb/pb

>1. There is was more than One Q

Agreed.

>2. Initial Q verses subsequent Qs are a and were very different

Agreed.

>3. I suspect Our verifications are based in hope along with a lot of confirmation bias

I've seen no verifications, only speculation. POTUS/Q timestamps excepted.

>4. It’s not Trump and may not even be Flynn

Agreed

>5. It’s followed the goals of showing us massive injustices and no justice

If my analysis is accurate I expect justice.

>6. It eroded confidence in our government to dangerous levels

If my analysis is correct that is a good thing.

>7. It’s a Psyop but not sure by who

Nor am I. I prefer to accept Q's premise of information warfare but I certainly understand the use of 'psyop'.

>8. The end result of this is a following that will see no wrong and no other narrative. We are no different than Antifa if we can no longer be men of reason

I don't see that at all. There are lots of possible narratives. Since this is qresearch the focus is understandably on Q and the narrative we can piece together from Q's writings. Is that not reasonable? We discuss the Q narrative at qresearch. I have no difficulty acknowledging that my analysis of the Q material is not the only possible narrative, either in the global sense or within the Q body of work.

>9. We are more divided now than ever

Agreed. That is intentional on the part of those who seek to divide us. I recognized a Q statement that addressed that and brought the matter up for discussion.

>10. You will know a tree by it’s fruit

Agreed

A good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce fine fruit