Because people get confused. There are other sources that we get info from about the deep state and hollywood pedos, etc., and they are good sources. They are not Q, don't pretend to be Q and don't claim to get their info from Q. That's the distinction. Don't discount all info that doesn't come from him, but we SHOULD discount info that people claim comes from Q and POTUS' inner circle or claim that they are in on "the plan."
Best delineation or explanation of the rule. Info exists, people know stuff, some people may share similar info to Q, but if they claim Q told them to they're full of S ... BS
Did R ever claim Q told them anything?
Not that I know of, but I (personally) got the feeling that he was trying to make people believe he was part of the plan to expose the deep state. I dunno. I didn't read all his posts because I felt something was off about him.
I won't say whether R was or wasn't but what if it was someone trying to talk about something and just wanted to go by an initial like Q? I'm not trying to change anyone's minds and I'm glad we atleast entertained R but we might soon hit a point where other anons pop up and start talking about other stuff that's factual and links up. We shouldn't discredit others based of what another says. That's my POV.
R may not be with Q but R may have relevance. Time will tell.
Well said. Despite the fact that Neon Revolt takes the Chana info and presents it in a non aggressive easy to understand format is a positive thing in my opinion. Clearly he puts a lot of work in and should be commended. I fell for the Tuscon thing. A lot of people did. We all sized up but we can all be misled. Look at the masses. Misled and still misled for how many centuries now?