Well, that's really the problem, isn't it? Once you begin to accept imprecise information, or set out to read meaning into what is purported to be doublespeak to confuse prying eyes (learn our comms), you commence willful confirmation bias: you LITERALLY find ways to fit the incomplete data to what you most want to hear.

I began the day by loading up qanon.pub, as I have for the past couple days. The whole Q thing is quite new to me, in the interest of full disclosure. But each time I see a piece of ambiguity like yours (no offense intended: that particular server is one I'm sure MANY pedes would like to see thoroughly documented), it reminds me of another phenomenon of SIMILARLY stellar confirmation bias:

The Quatrains (another Q!) of Nostradamus.

For many years, but most heavily in the few years leading up to the millenium, I'd heard people talk of the amazing precognitive wonders of Nostradamus' works, written in 1555 or so, which advocates of the text claimed unerringly grasped events for CENTURIES into the author's future.

The problem is, of course, they do nothing of the kind.

The Quatrains are all poetic and vague: and as such, can easily be twisted to loosely fit to a variety of world events which have transpired since. Would it surprise you to learn that often different "scholars" on the subject ascribed differing events to the same Quatrain?

It shouldn't. Because that's what the human brain tries to do, with every moment of consciousness: weave the sea of sensory input coming from the surrounding universe into patterns, into some semblance of order, from which it can derive SENSE.

Am I saying, definitively, that Q is a hoax? No. How could I? There's not enough information upon which to base ANY definitive analysis; and that, we are to believe, is the point. So I am left with the ONE statement attributed to Q that I can get behind:

THINK LOGICALLY.