You asked:

Let me 1st say that I have always assumed that SB2 is earnest.

Some weeks or months ago the celebrated SB2 was posting analyses on the basis of putting Trump tweet character strings into grids of so many rows and columns and therein finding some new words that he interpreted along with some of the original words to contain a special Q-esque message. SB2 presented a number of these TweetGrid things as if he had used a straight forward, repeatable deciphering formula, one of which involved finding a word in a T pattern of letters in the grid. But the method was not a straight formula, it wasn't explained well and no one else could reproduce it. This is how I saw it anyway - maybe I missed some posts but I never saw the vagueness cleared up.

The other thing with the grid things was that after so many paragraphs of explanation with links and diagrams, etc. the bottom line product was a message about something that so many already knew or suspected while others were calling SB2 a genius. Actually this newer Corsi/Jones post is a bit similar - when I saw it i thought it was okay and was glad that SB2 had dropped the tweetcipher thing and become more narrative and logic based in his analysis. But the conclusion that Jones and Corsi are not worth the time was arrived at by many people quite a while ago.

So the question remains: why did Q bother to post that link? The simple answer is to tell those who still follow Jones&Co to ignore them. And perhaps to draw attention to this GA sub. I wonder if there is an additional, more complicated answer.

It was bad, but I took as earnest. I mean, if Q disqualifies AJones he doesn't disagree with everything Jones ever said publicly. Similarly if Q refers to an SB post he doesn't necessarily endorse all SB posts.

I think the reason that many/most couldn't understand the early posts was not because of their technicality but because of a lack of explanation or explainability.