>>1617144

Why do you need a "we" to be skeptical, or anything else for that matter?

You're not secure enough as an independent, free-thinking individual that you need a "we" to hold your hand?

This may not be the right place for you. I hope you figure this out sooner rather than later and quit shitting in the bread so I don't have to filter you. I really don't want to filter you. You seem like you might have something to contribute, if you didn't need that "we" to confirm your own thoughts.

>>1617193

Well, there you have it–you feel qualified to tell Q how to go about the Plan.

And you will lead us there, too, I suppose.

I love this phrase–"we could ramp up demand"…

I guess you have a mouse in your pocket.