[exDemMom]

And just how many missives of fragmented or isolated sentences do I need to see to form an opinion of Q?

Q strikes me as something like a psychic. Psychics are very good at picking up on clues and using them to tell people things they thought no one could know. But in reality, they aren’t saying anything at all and they have no supernatural knowledge.

I’ll leave the Q games to those who enjoy such pursuits. I’ve no interest in it myself.

[TXnMA]

"I’ll leave the Q games to those who enjoy such pursuits. I’ve no interest in it myself."

Now, that's a fair enough position! :-)

Sadly, others -- with no more research or understanding of the Socratic method than you -- immediately launch into denigration of and snarkiness toward those who do understand.

From somewhere in my past I can draw on familiarity with Mil-Intel lingo and methods -- and on some ability with spatial and graphic analysis -- and have extracted much valuable evidence -- starting with "clues" which might be senseless to you...

Indeed, not all are suited for intel/psyops efforts...

But all have the choice of being civil toward their fellow FReepers...

FRegards,
TXnMA
 

[higgmeister]

Q strikes me as something like a psychic. Psychics are very good at picking up on clues and using them to tell people things they thought no one could know. But in reality, they aren’t saying anything at all and they have no supernatural knowledge.

You probably should not compare Q Anon to psychics when you actually mean "cold readers."

Cold reading is a set of techniques used by mentalists, psychics, fortune-tellers, mediums, illusionists (readers), and scam artists to imply that the reader knows much more about the person than the reader actually does.

It gets your point across better where the word "psychic" just misses the mark.