[TXBubba]

NOTE - one doesn’t have to reference “Q” in order to make points. This is something I’ve always found a lazy failure in logic & reason by those considered here. It goes back to the beginning, answer the questions! They have a fundamental misunderstanding about what “Q” is ... if they’d just answer the questions then they’d get the point -but they can’t + won’t. So keep “Q” out of the discussion - go right to the article or subject of interest. For example discussion of the chips from China - leave the fact “Q” aficionados have been discussing such for the better part of a year - the subject and article in Bloomberg is all that’s needed. IMO ;)

Totally agree! And later when they ask how you figured things out then you can mention Q. But not necessary. I think Q wants us to get people to wake up and think. Not just to follow Q. Though at some point that might be what has to be done out of necessity.

[Steven W.]

I think Q wants us to get people to wake up and think. Not just to follow Q.

Exactly - the whole "Q" op is premised on the fact we're not mind numbed robots or whatever pathetic smears they have on that "OPUS" thread. Sometimes "Q" has to alert us to things we don't know or can't / don't connect on our own. Sometimes "Q" has to redirect when anons drift away from the intended target or when shills take in an unintended direction.