I see that as one of the biggest problems that has hindered the effort, and if it continues, it will become worse.
Especially in how expectations are being set for events that may or may not happen, on a given date, or ever.
Recently we have seen swarms of momentum built up about a particular type of video (or another particular type of video) being released yesterday (3/11) or perhaps on 3/15.
Of course a lot of this is to be expected within a model in which information and data is given out (largely) in the form of clues that people are encouraged to research and put together. However, without applying strict discipline to the effort, it is inevitable that the "answers" being peddled all over the Internet are going to be far afield (and often damaging to the original intent).
As we all can see, people all over the Internet are quickly posting their latest theories and conclusions 24 hours each day. Some of them are well meaning in their motivation, some are not. Some are striving to maintain a level of discipline and let their conclusions be guided by where the clues and research lead them, and some are using this exercise to mold the conclusions to support their pet theories and beliefs.
Of course we can't control what is being created out on all reaches of the Internet, but we can control the quality and tenor of the FR "Q" threads. I have seen some really fantastic posts in these threads based on FReepers examining the actual content and context of various Q posts, and putting forth some well reasoned opinions on the possible meaning(s) of the posts. Others provide detailed analysis of video or images and tether them to other data points of information; these are fantastic work efforts that should be relished!
But I have also seen wild 'copy and pastes' of anonymous individuals' wild unsubstantiated guesses about things. There are links to blithering idiots on you tube rambling incoherently about things that they have no real clue about.
All that I am saying is that the more we (in these FR Q threads) stick to the actual content and context of the Q posts, while bringing in data and information that is verified (at least to the point of the source being validated as a real human being or entity), the better quality our research will be (and we will be less guilty of setting expectations for others that are merely warm desires).
And when we introduce content from "the wild" it may help if we include our own comments regarding what we know (or don't know) of the source, supporting data/information, and its relationship to the larger picture.
Just my two cents, I'd had to see this effort dashed upon the rocks by a constant stream of wishful thinking that never comes to pass.
I like to think I can look at a wide variety of information, even from "kookoo birds" and suss out what truths I can determine.
We are all adults here.
We must armor ourselves against the accusations of "conspiracy theory" that come our way. Eff em, I say.
Risk of ‘conspiracy’ label the deeper we go.
Truth will shock the WORLD.
:)
Great post!