>>5097050 (LB)
>>5097110 (LB)
Re: how to spot "dark Q" or "unmarked Q" as I sometimes describe it, I routinely check deltas between post times and post numbers, and sometimes the improbable numeric beauty is too hard to imagine not being by the kind of design that only Q could achieve.
I don't document 99% of these, but here's one I thought obvious, as an example of what I mean. I've seen more impressive apparent numerical collaboration between posts and less…and you can't be sure by doing this, but I use it as a tool.
Oh…and a Carolyn Bisset-Kennedy (sp?) dental-themed post the other night was…I mean…come on. I'm ~100% sure that was Q.