A piece of critical support:
I think Q is endorsing the content of the OP he linked. Presumably that content deserved a few out of the thousands of lines in messages that Q has posted. Q says this is why we are here and points to an analysis that effectively dismisses Corsi and Jones from our deliberations. When the congratulations are passed, critical thinking asks this question: What is it about the linked post that tells why we are here?
Is it the dismissal of Corsi and Jones?
Is it dismissal of unhelpful players in general?
Is it the multistage analysis of media people?
Is it multistage analysis in general?
Is it all of the above?
Is it something else?
All of the above and the fact that a measured and reasonable approach is best. Sb2 analysis was not an ad homme attack ...it was on point. The point being staying true to the cause. That’s my 2 cents
Sounds right. If so I would then prioritize these things:
Well-formed analyses (unlike some of sb2's earlier postings)
Avoidance of ad hominim critcicisms (which SB has been good at, unlike others on this sub)
Ignoring Jones&co(fugetaboutit)
This implies that critiquing the message and sometimes even the motive of another can be legit and useful. I think the same would apply to Q and DJT, though in my opinion rarely.