>>1892685

The easiest way to spot a fraud within a community isn't in looking for specific tells (well, that's the hard way), but to simply ask yourself 'are they trying to copy anyone?'.

Unfortunately I have a bit of a problem that Q's 'leading questions' format is similar to one of the many tools I utilise in posts (the 'leading questions' format is an effective way to get someone to accept a point without it coming across as hostile, because factual statements 'sound arrogant'), and I prefer to use my real name to self-identify elsewhere (a process 8chan prohibits, much to my annoyance).

However R's emulation of Q is clearly a massive signal of a fraud. People who are non-fraudulent express their own unique personality that is clearly and uniquely distinguishable from that of the 'lead character' (for lack of a better term).

Someone who emulates is symptomatic of one of two things (both indicating a fraud):

1) A fraud (because they can't make it, so they fake it), or

2) A follower (IE the person they like appeals to them so they emulate)

A follower by default implies they lack their own knowledge, are easily impressible, and therefore cannot offer their own insights (people with experience express their own unique personalities).

A fraud emulates a successful person in hopes of piggybacking off that success. Regardless of intentions, their goals are always harmful - it's nearly always selfish.

Ask yourself what unique traits does R bring to the table?, if the answer is none, you have yourself a copycat.

Also, another pro-tip: non-frauds are nearly always team players or willing to work on an equal playing field (IE working with others). Frauds can't risk exposing their fraud, so they have to take a 'top down' leadership approach issuing dictats.

Consider how CNN TELLS you what is proof, rather than saying 'here's the evidence, what do YOU think?'. Frauds require power to maintain the facade, people with natural talent don't require power because it will manifest itself naturally and influence change naturally.

Notice I'm not saying if R is or isn't a fraud, I'm laying out the methodologies and explaining how they work so you can determine if you think they work, and then to apply the methodology yourself.

You might also consider applying it to other people besides R. Maybe test it against previously discovered frauds and some ambiguous ones to see if it works.