That is a natural fact. And I don't remember injecting Q into this conversation. You assume much.
There are plenty of experts on FreeRepublic. And plenty of geniuses. I don't claim to be either. I have learned much from my fellows here. But I do have a clarity of understanding that many don't, because of Q.
Much of what is 'known' now by the GENERAL POPULATION of FR, is known because of Q, whether you or they like to admit it. So much information has been 'leaked' out that is unprecedented in American history. That is not an accident. It is a PLAN.
I would much rather people stopped bashing 'Q', and appreciated it's usefulness to ALL of our benefit, rather than pretend this information just magically appeared on the internet or via some 'dialed in' journalists or 'bloggers'.
But you don't know more than everyone on every issue.
Believe it or not, I never claimed to.
But next time you interact with me (or anyone), do not assume that you're the world expert. People see it for what it is -- bullshit.
That's pride f'n with you. When I interact with people, if i think they're wrong, I will say so. You may not like how I say it, but it gets your attention. And the attention of others.
I've never said I was 'the world expert'. You just say that because your feelings and pride are hurt and you're lashing out.
What I say and how I say it may be many things, but bullshit it is not.
Also, expertise does not guarantee the correct analysis.
signed,
Assdick

Q seems to be beyond the trees a bit, my advice, best to be kind when out here. More flys with honey and truth. Old and Just saying to a stone cold gung fu bagster.
Bagster, you deride people as "schleps" who disagree with or are not (in your opinion) as informed as you. Why?
Is your analysis correct regardless of your expertise? Is your expertise unassailable regardless of your analysis? Or do you have an oracular monopoly on both expertise and analysis?