Thanks for the feedback and advice.

I’d agree - you *are* one of the most brilliant people here “with regards to cracking fake Q.” That brilliance, however,  has not been demonstrated to extend to your skills in the presentation of your case.

>You write of that which you know nothing then bring a huge lie and larp before others, only to expect to make money on it. 

At this point, I expect to make no more than $10 on *any* post here.

And, *as paradoxical as it might seem,* my motivations **are the same as yours*: to reveal *truth.*

Is the whole Q thing real or fake? *I don’t know, never claimed to.* Nonetheless, there are some points within the storyline - the degree of political corruption that’s been emerging for *years* - which are deserving of attention. So, I **made an investment to get this piece out** - with full acknowledgement that given the way the bid bot system works, I could just as likely end up **losing** money with the investment. Which is fine, because my motivation to publish this piece was not financial.

And given that the ultimate aim is to expose *truth* - I welcome your input. *If* Your research turns out to be correct, then that investment served to bring more eyeballs to it. *Win-win.*

*If* the entire Q thing *is* some crazy psy-op or scam of sorts, **it’s great** that you’ve utilized the platform of *this* post to help bring attention to it.

And thus, I apologize for not slowing down to consider all that first, having gotten hung up on the disorganization and ineffectiveness of its presentation.

The entire issue *is* one that’s rather confusing, and the way you just slammed this thread and were so adamant about *your* stance did *not* seem conducive to the clarification of the matter, which this piece was published to serve. Ultimately, I have my readers’ interest at heart, and the way you conducted yourself was **not** professional and came across completely the wrong way - which seemed to hijack the thread and veer it into disorganization, which ran completely counter to the intentions I had for this space I created to serve my readers becoming acquainted with the matter - not to convince anyone of anything, but present some questions on the subject. It took sitting with it all this morning and revisiting the whole thing to see more of where you were actually coming from and how are intentions are actually the same, despite different approaches.

In any case, *thank you.* 

Your service to the truth & light is appreciated, as are the many lessons contained within this extended dialogue - as rocky as parts of it have been.

And I do apologize for my reactivity in parts, and insulting your intelligence. *You might have deserved it - just as I might have deserved some of your insults.* However, it *wasn’t* an effective means of getting my intended message across. (Which ultimately is, I appreciate the counter-perspectives you bring - although there is much room for improvement in their presentation, such that they are professionally, well-organized for clear comprehension - which shall best serve those shared aims of bringing light to truth.)

🙏