Thanks greeneyes. I appreciate your kind words. I agree with you about the Q Posts! LOL! Very entertaining - and educational for sure about current events!
Nanny editors can sometimes bring up good points, and cause even more deep thinking, but perhaps we have been running into some people who I question have good intentions about this topic. I do not find Q thread participants to be fanatical or rude or closed minded - unless provoked.... then leaving themselves to be blamed by the provacateur for righteously reacting in self defense. It is such a waste of time to fight thread wars. But I guess that is the point if someone visits a thread who is really a disrupter. But I do wish even those well, and hope we can all get enlightened and learn eventually to “just get along.”
It is GOOD to see you!
I’d rather not have a thread that’s 75% disruption/rudeness.
Sometimes, there’s so many I can’t even scan past them to get to the info I’d like to read.
Anyway good to see you too.
What is your definition of a ‘disrupter’?
Here is the Q-definition of ‘disrupter,’ as it appears on the threads. I.e.: a disrupter is anyone, on a non-caucus thread, who disagrees in any way with the theory that Q is either Trump or someone close to Trump who is sharing valuable insights with anyone smart enough to appreciate and decipher them.
If that definition is correct, then Q is a cult. If it’s incorrect, then Q-believers need to do a fundamentally better job of not being so nasty to those who do not 100% embrace their wholly unproven and, in many cases at least, counter-rational theory.