Replies

I have a tendency to forget how thin-skinned and prickly the Q-believers are. Personally, I found the discussion re whether Q is Alex Jones or Bannon very interesting and thought-provoking. I should have realized that mentioning it on the Q-worshipping thread would cause a backlash. It must not be considered sufficiently reverential.

No, it's that on an earlier Q thread you were sanctimonious and condescendingly telling people you *knew* who Q was, once a certain date had been brought to your attention.

Then you changed your mind on the basis of "further reading" but did not consider yourself discredited.

Now you are shoring up mere speculation at best, even though Q has pointed out that it is the American People who are vital.

Here, let me give you a quarter so you can buy some bubble-gum-machine pearls to clutch whilst you faint onto a couch over your having been called out AGAIN as a troll.

Here, let me give you a quarter so you can buy some bubble-gum-machine pearls to clutch whilst you faint onto a couch over your having been called out AGAIN as a troll.

It strikes me reading these self-described "independent thinkers" on these Q threads that their "independent-thinking" manifests itself most often as a superior attitude and an elite condescension toward all other participants whom they consider stupid. These self-annoying "thinking deniers" of anything serious in the Q threads show their contempt for the other, in their opinion, less "enlightened" participants by slinging insults and slurs and other generalized ad hominem comments about their childish lack of discernment and maturity in being not as "adult" or as "keenly discerning" or as "smart" as themselves, these few "brilliant" critics, who are blessed to recognize Q for the charlaton he or she must be, according to their sole determination.

It is therefore up to them to enlighten these poor ignorant, stupid clods, who can not determine for themselves the TRUTH about Q and, thereby, save them from themselves! This is the hubris of the socialist mindset. . . and it reveals the for who they must be. Statists.

Such ad hominem attacks are the hallmarks of a debater who really has no cogent facts in his arsenal with which to attack the actual subject.

That may be because they really do not, or cannot, grasp the subject matter.

They demonstrate they have not really read the Q posts in their entirety, being satisfied to throw ignorant critical brickbats, with little evidence using ill considered, non-representative, analogies which are absurdly off-the-mark, not realizing how ill-informed such analogies show them to be on the subject they are criticizing.