Not much to see after playing with the photo of the pen.
Original on left.
Just having a little fun.
About Q and Q’s info.
Would it matter if Q was not a part of the Trump White House?
How would it affect your thinking of Q’s info?
What would you think if Q is from the U.K., or a former US Senator, or a former US Military General?
What if Q is an outsider, but still connected to Trump White House Team?
Would the intent (not the content) of Q’s info change your perception of the info?
As of today, Q is still much of an “unknown,” but we do have a very strong indication from Q that he is a part of the Trump White House team.
We don’t know if Q is a full-time member of the Trump White House team, or someone connected to Trump/White House.
What would happen to the validity Q’s info, or how we would perceive Q’s info if Q’s identity became known?
Depending on Q’s identity, would Q be devalued, or elevated?
Would Q’s info then be devalued or elevated?
What would matter to you more; “Q’s identity, or Q’s info?
(Q’s info obviously comes by committee, which certainly makes the most sense.)
About Q’s info.
Q’s info contains very specific terms, acronyms, each of Q’s written word(s), Q’s writing style, Q’s sentence structure as well as placement of Q’s content in Q’s typical structured manner remain the same.
Q has stated, “Where we go one, we go all.”
Would the previously mentioned statement by Q feel different to you, if you thought Q was a US Senator helping Trump and his White House team, as opposed to a full-time Trump White House staffer?
These questions being posed are meant to pick at your perception of how you decipher Q’s info.
What if Q was Snowden? Or Assange?
Would your perception of Q’s info be different than before?
Assange being the one saying, “Where we go one, we go all.”
Would that take on a different meaning than if Stephen Miller (White House) saying this?
Here is what I’m driving at…
Q has mentioned several times to, “Expand your thinking.”
In deciphering Q’s info, we might consider coming at it from different angles.
Two people, even 25 people can say the exact same thing and all of them mean something different.
“Intent, syntax and style of delivery” are as important as the hard facts such as numbers, timelines and geo locations.
Q does not shy away from intention, syntax and delivery of his info.
All Anon’s opinions count, no matter how small a suggestion, or different than what others have offered.
We should also try to simply look at Q’s info, “as is.”
Trying to break our thinking out of any ruts we may have gotten ourselves into and provoke different ways to come at Q’s info.