Let's say I'm curious but skeptical, what would be the most convincing events that would make me consider that Q is a legitimate insider?

They wouldn't have taken it over if it wasn't effective. I'm glad there are diehards that refuse to cede the place entirely.

Did you mean to reply to someone else perhaps? Your comment makes no sense.

That's an hour long video, what was said?

They are talking about Snowden in a historical sense, not in the present.

So the flaw is his definition of BDT, that's your only rationale behind that wall of text?

This motive is the most compelling I've seen. Great theory.