Replies

I meant to add that if Q really wanted to imply that the MOSSAD is in control over the US MSM, then Q should take better care to disambiguate his or her contentions from the “false cause fallacy.
------------------------------------------------
Q put it out there a while back (14 Aug 2018) and it is ambiguous but he wants us to do the digging:

From Q1871
Those who scream the loudest….
Find the connections.
1:1:1:1
Primary>>AffiliateA>>AffiliateB>>AffiliateC>>
Marching to the same beat?
Coincidence?
Logical thinking.
Q

> Q put it out there a while back (14 Aug 2018) and it is ambiguous but he wants us to do the digging:

Certainly. But digging implies asking questions— such as, is the “MOS” in “MOSSAD” on a kid’s t-shirt (even a politician’s kid’s t-shirt) merely a coincidence, unless accompanied by something more tangible?

Otherwise IMHO we might be indulging in the same level of logic that we decry among liberals— among them, perhaps, that there is a single universal correct answer for every ambiguity that everyone needs to subscribe to, or be voted off the island.

I also do not think it is worthwhile for us to demean each other if the clues are occasionally subject to multiple interpretations. (Eg, IMHO, perhaps next time, if Q intends to convey the idea that MOSSAD controls the MSM, he or she should just clearly state “MOSSAD controls the MSM.” IMHO there is no need to be coy about it.)