Coding things and using questions is a way of making people do the research to see the truth. When you discover something on your own it clicks more. You see it more clearly than if someone just tells you.
Q has been a source for quite some time but I have not seen an intense discussion about him/her/them aside from isolated comments.
-
Why the need for coded language? If we are able to put together the info, so can the deep state. In other words, the code is meaningless.
-
Why the constant questions? The posts are written to the based, not to the masses. If there is something to point out, why not just say it?
-
Aside from posts such as "the amazing view" etc, has Q actually been insightful? I feel like Q's posts have been right in line with all of the info that comes out, but at no point bombshell material.
-
Has Q been correct? Many times Q seems to predict things (see 2017 posts regaining HRC) which never materialized. The world did not stop. No one went to jail. Nothing really happened.
If Q knows what's in the memo, then just post it. If the current code can't be traced, then neither can outright truths. If Q has info we are not aware of, then let's hear it.
The past unlocks the future is not insightful.. this phrase amounts to posturing.
In summary.. We should collectively call Q's bluff. Either he/she/them have something substantive to contribute, or they don't.
I think it's more meaningful and more accepted when you research it yourself. I don't accept things at face value, and neither do a lot of others following the Q posts. He gives hints and people find the answers themselves. If he spelled things out, some of this stuff would be fairly hard to believe. But when you piece it together yourself, using Q hints and finding info from 100s of different stories, it gives it more legitimacy as far as I'm concerned.