In all honesty, I can not explain that. Is it persuasive circumstantial evidence? Absolutely. There are strong arguments on both sides. Unlike the Q antagonists, I remain open to being convinced either way.
It’s nice to converse with people who are open minded. If you don’t mind, can you tell me what good argument the other side has? Mostly I just hear a lot of complaining from them. As you called them the Q antagonists think Q is dropping names and dates. Uh, no. All names and dates are speculation by us.
If you don’t mind, can you tell me what good argument the other side has?
Don't mind all. As just one example, we were told that on a certain date mass arrests were to occur. The antagonists argue that this proves Q is a LARP. On the other hand, Q proponents have a compelling rebuttal: the false prediction was tactical, meant as a decoy to keep deep state operatives off the scent. And on and on it goes. Each side makes a compelling case. People who believe Q are smart, perfectly rational people; they are not "paranoid conspiracists" and they are right to be skeptical and questioning. I find that criticism of them is often unfair and can be over the top. But the antagonists are equally smart people.
Hence, I find myself on the fence.