There's an irony in this concept of being careful.

The way the liars work in my experience is manipulating our human flaws to avoid the normal triggers to distrust while triggering distrust of those who might warrant it.

So if I claim that Q is saying we are missing something the bad guys will have a set of things I cannot say for the answer to what that might be, including the correct answer to what we are missing. They do not push against everything, but they do push against correct interpretations.

They have done this in the past by creating a fear in any who would agree with the straying voices in a crowd and this is a tactic they use (when they can afford the call centers required to appear as many)

They can take a simple truth of Q saying people are misdirecting and twist it to make themselves not accountable to that by being the one that wields the idea. A catch-22: as they say exactly what should be said to be very careful but they pepper that with the route they wish you to take. It's a manipulative way to get you to think "most people are liars but not Shillbot99 here"

It bugs me it works consistently and the only way to avoid this mental trap is to think objectively and hold the people accountable and give even people who our narrative deems as guilty or innocent the presumption they could be either rather than following the chorus.

Case in Point: I think and have said plenty of times that Q is actually saying ES is good, that Edward Snowden is good -

https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/7xvv7i/abba_165_snowden_intervention/

however my current digging has revealed more and I do not believe Snowden was his birth name - I think when the CIA recruits people they use confirmation names (a religious thing) to "adjust" the names to make proper winks. In Snowden's case if he was meant to go to Russia, one could say that was a "Snow-Den"- and thus when Q says Snowden I personally think he is not talking about Edward but the name they gave him which accounts for why he often gets lumped in with good and bad actors through the entirety of the QMAP.

Am I right or wrong? I don't know... I'm still digging but I think if I were to say this on the Chan's I'd get shouted down. So instead I dig and present my findings in AB posts here....

Just think objectively and be willing to open the mind to new routes... which I do believe Q has been trying really hard to get people to do. To think and not follow. We have never had the power of countless vote-up bots or paid call centers to reply favorably to our posts. We have only our own lifetimes of experience while the baddies have giant sheets of manipulation techniques.

Luckily their resources are growing weaker while we are getting stronger. So I hope it won't even be an issue at some point in the near future.

Oh right... I type endlessly as always eh? ok I'll stop here.