I'm conducting research into the origin and goals of Q phenomenon.
Can you tell me why so many of your Q education links direct people away from FR to other websites?
Is that being done on purpose?
Because Q is only allowed this thread.
Is that being done on purpose?
Very conspiratorial tone, but ask the moderators why if you are interested. Hell, report back with your findings. Will be your helpful contribution.
Because it didn’t start here. This is just a thread in a forum discussing it.
Yes, many sites other than FR are working on the Q issues. Many get nearly everything wrong, but may have a single thing right. If we can identify that one thing, we bring it here, discuss it and include it in our general common knowledge base if we can reasonably prove it to be true.
Much of what Q has addressed can be shown to be true through open records on the internet. If you can figure who or what Q is talking about it is much easier to research.
We have learned a great deal about how our government really works.
Can you tell me why so many of your Q education links direct people away from FR to other websites?
That is something I noticed too, mac. Almost every thread posted on FR links to some other site. Is that being done on purpose, ya brain trust?
“Can you tell me why so many of your Q education links direct people away from FR to other websites?”
Can you do research?
Your research is going to have poor results if you create questions as vague as those stated. Some of my friends do real sociological research, and would never approach it with the sloppiness you’re showing. I’ve been parts of groups before that deeply enjoy analyzing themselves and such research has always been done with university-level quality of planning, explanation and follow through.
Therefore, I conclude, without more data I admit, that you’re a journalist looking for material for a poorly sourced article. I find people respond positively when asked clear questions with explanations of where you come from, how you’re trained, and what you intend to do with the information obtained. Our experience reading slanted journalism doesn’t make many respond well to questions asked in a vacuum.
You also aren’t showing yourself to be a good researcher if you haven’t already answered your first question for yourself from the links at the top of the thread. Since they’re placed there to simplify the answering of those very questions for people curious about Q, it seems as though you’re asking to get the answer without doing the intellectual work involved. Which also makes me think journalist because tight time frames frequently obviate the ability to dig deeply, and the need is more for clever quotes than for understanding of a topic.
Your second question is, again, sloppy. But the particularly bad phrasing doesn’t encourage people to put the effort into giving lucid answers to unclear questions.
The neat thing about this particular group is that there are many very clean, clear thinkers who do excellent research, and their respect often goes to people who have those same skills. Others do, indeed, respond with bombast when confused. They also have unfortunate experience with people who come on, usually referred to as “trolls”, with the intention of wasting research thread time to slow down research, or who just enjoy the sound and fury they work hard to create. A valid researcher would need to distinguish themselves from those types.