TYB
Well said baker.
>look at the info that's out there
as long as the info posted is itself accurate, then new/relevant speculation as to its possible meaning is indeed noteworthy as part of our research
>Anyone who claims to have a definitive answer on Mattis is too invested in an outcome when there is as yet, no answer.
Some speculation is valuable, offers new insights/source info, & makes no claims of certainty beyond which the data supports. Speculation is always best received it it comes absent sensational redtexted ZOMG EUREKA I'VE JUST SOLVED THE ENTIRE PUZZLE GUISE!! but even real anons sometimes get ahead of themselves when on an almonds-activated buzz.
Other speculation is either total whimsy, based on no solid data, based on endless rehashes of old-news data, can clearly be tied to C_A/MSM talking points or clearly tied to shills slides which have been ongoing for days, or clearly tied to known shills (spitting in your general direction toots) via ID-tracking.
It is totally within our skillset to discern the difference btwn noteworthy speculation and crap, but it's still a gray area where there aren't definitive answers. Let's keep the convo open about it, and keep our comments focused on logic/facts when explaining our positions. We are strongest when we reach consensus via team-analysis. This isn't reddit-tier voting, but the brainstorming and searching-for-holes-in-arguments of think tanks and research groups.
Godspeed anons