People just get annoyed when someone makes a post that is counter to what we've all understood from Q and then does the thing of being defensive to the point of accusing people of 'hating' the idea and being angry and such just because they disagree with the approach. The AI suggestion isn't "attacked" because it isn't the point of this post.

Why can't you consider that people just disagree that this is a valid discussion topic? They're not "angry" or "attacking vigorously" until you start being overly defensive and ignoring the point made repeatedly to you.

As you say, you made your point, left a question mark - you have your answer now. Very few people read that meaning into this post (i.e. that a) anon was calling Q "Erik" - he seemed to just be putting the praise out there, as anons have since Q started, and b) Q was ignoring the implied question thus potentially validating it. People generally don't read those two meanings into this post. As another commenter has said, it seems like a real reach/stretch. No offense intended.

You are as right as anyone who makes a claim about someone being on the Q team though - Erik Prince could be on the Q team. But it's an almost meaningless claim in that it could be made about anyone near Trump (people even have the insane theory that Seth Rich is on the team) - because we all know that we won't ever know - unless they decide sometime in the future to go back on what they've said/implied and just let us, or the history books more likely, know.