> Given the secretive nature of Q that is not possible.
I would counter that I highly doubt there is any US law that prevents anyone from stating that the MOSSAD controls the MSM. Is not that covered by free speech?
Let’s say that information is somehow classified. That still leaves open the possibility that that is not what Q meant. That is what is stated in the FR Q lexicon which I posted in my previous thread response. Did you cross check your contention with the FR lexicon? What do you think of its contention that MOS == MOSSAD is highly unlikely? Would you contend that the FR lexicon is wrong and that you are correct? How do we decide which of our interpretations are correct and which are incorrect? If there is a dissenting opinion, does that person or persons deserve to be “voted off the island”?
It seems to me that the group has become a hotbed of conformity and intolerance.
> Q’s communications are specific to him and are designed to provide clues to people whop are inclined to seek the truth for themselves.
Doesn’t Q use the Socratic method? If Q can use it, why not others?
> Were you on 8chan? Do you think a LARP could have survived the autists for over what? almost 3 years now?
Regrettably I was not on 8chan. But is that a prerequisite to respectability, here or anywhere else? Is the Dalai Lama on 8chan? Trump himself? I do not have encyclopedic knowledge of all things Trump and all things Q (but who does? must one have encyclopedic knowledge of everything to ask questions or make comments in a discussion? if so, what is the point of discussing anything, since the participants by definition all consist of know-it-alls and they are all in agreement on everything to begin with?)
> If Q were faking I think he would have been caught by now.
I am not suggesting Q is fake. Where did that come from? I am only questioning one or two of the recent interpretations. Is questioning an interpretation in a discussion thread now a thought crime in FR-land? My... how far we have come...
> You just aren’t going to get outside proof that MOS is Mossad.
Yet people here insist I am a derp or a troll (or worse) merely for questioning something that cannot be proven. Why not just throw all caution to the winds and give up on rational discussion altogether?
> I believe this theory has more explanatory power with regards to the evidence at hand than anything else I have seen. I also believe that this our last chance. If we fail this time the forces of evil will not give us another chance.
I agree with you there. I’m happy to believe Q is real (in some sense) but I have no proof so I try not to get too high on my horse if someone else I encounter chooses not to believe him or her, or my interpretation. If others start insisting I take their claims on face value without any proof whatsoever, the first thought that will cross my mind is “cult fanatic.” That is what seems to be happening here. If someone insists I adopt their belief system, to me, that is not a rational discussion. It is a cult. Free republic is supposedly a discussion forum— not a host for any cult.
I have not totally discounted the conjecture that MOS means MOSSAD in Q1871. I feel I am keeping a much more open mind about this than many of the responders, who seem to lower themselves very quickly to personal attacks if i do not immediately adopt their point of view. That is not a discussion— it is a form of online intimidation and cult-think.
I miss the old FR, and alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater before it. People were more polite and more tolerant back then.
That was your longest whine yet.
Is the Dalai Lama on 8chan? Trump himself?
Not sure about the Dalai Lama, but Trump himself is often on 8chan.
His posting name is 'Q+'.
#TheBasics
And here's a thing you might consider. Many of us cultists have immersed ourselves in this thing for nigh unto two years. It's quite possible that when we say a thing, we have done the research or shared it from somebody who has. We have discussed each and every Q post from every which way to Sunday.
As you yourself have just learned, our LEXIQON carries the thoughts and findings of many of the very people you are whining to now. Every possible interpretation was presented there. It is not the end all be all of Q interpretations, so please don't cite it as such.
So, yea. Not to brag or anything, but when a long-time Q "cultist' says something, they are often times speaking from knowledge and authority and it would behoove you to keep that in mind when you come in here flapping your arms, demanding 'citations' and crying about people picking on you.
Your MOS was discussed probably over a year ago. You bring nothing new to the table. As The Toddler pointed out, Q has a history of posting MOS in the context that could only be interpreted as MOSSAD.
So, yea. Your rant is meaningless.
