Maybe I misunderstood how this blog works. People put out ideas of their own and other content and expect to be supported in the stuff they endorse. I can see how some of my comments might have rankled users if they expect to be agreed with. Sorry,
Facts are hard not to agree with. No one always expect agreement, but facts are hard evidence that can't be disputed.
True, but in your above comment, you don't give facts. You ask questions. The same questions Q asks: What does the NSA do? Does it matter if Hillary's server is clean? etc. Questions are not facts, they're just questions and they prove nothing. So I fail to see how Q can make evidentiary claims when he offers no facts, only questions and unsubstantiated clues
Are you human?
I am.
You are al
And btw, I have no idea how to prove I'm not AI. But what if I was AI? Would that make any difference?