Splendid, Rita.
You hit the spots I missed.
There can be no recovery from that.
So, you’re still over here contributing, what exactly, for our edification?
You don’t believe Q.
You find Q “codes” “unnecessary” — in classic school-marm speak.
You bailed out on the Q Socratic method of learning. Period.
You hasten to one-up Q drops with “other sources” that you don’t name and cite the “same information” as Q that you don’t describe.
You get a little tender push back and hours later it comes out...
You say, of we regulars, in a general fashion, “Some want to think they’re special....” (pp, barely).
So the problem is you don’t get Q and you’re a little green about the gills, of the fact that we Do.
Now Q is gone dark and “on the move”, and so we have a fraud vote against Trump’s re-election you observe our discussion relates to current events.
You show up with your foreign counsel to diminish who Q is, and who We are, for listening to Q+, and not appreciating your ignorance that is current events conversation is not a clarion call for turning us into one more chat and doom thread, but remains Q sensitive, as a way to recall four (4) years of Q drops and connect dots in current events.
If you can do that, great. Do begin.
If not, then you’re over here contributing, to what, exactly? ......
Oh so one has to “believe” in q to comment? are you then stating this is a Q ‘Caucus’?..... otherwise your questions and statements are just rattling.
Splendid, Rita.
You hit the spots I missed.
There can be no recovery from that.