1/ This thread will present my hypothesis that Q may be sho…

2/
To frame the thread, let's review some core themes from Q drops:
- words have mathematical values
- sentence structure/grammar/[mis]spelling matters
- language is coded
- drops are fractal

3/
By fractal, I mean the information in drops can apply to multiple domains and varying scale:
- surface level 'face value' interpretation
- occult/symbolic interpretation
- mathematical interpretation
- cross-referential interpretation
- ...

What is 'Q'? Sorry if the question is obvious.

4/
Could Q be teaching us to decode drops so that we can apply that fractal lesson at a larger scale: to language as a whole?

Is it possible that we have been taught a form of grammar and way of speaking that is inherently ambiguous and error-prone?

5/
If we are taught as children to think/speak/write using ambiguous language, we can always be exploited by those cognizant of this structural weakness [by design].

This is especially true in the arenas of:
- constitutions / governments
- contracts / law

6/
Is it possible to write a mathematically unambiguous contract? regulation? constitution?
Yes!

Have we done that? Has anyone done that?
Shouldn't it be a core requirement to eliminate ambiguity?
Instead we are stuck in a system of illusions [by design].

7/
The topic that started me thinking along these lines was Trump's repeated use that his Ukraine call was 'PERFECT'.

Was Trump signaling he was working from a "Legally Perfect" document.

Legally Perfect is a concept used in law and diplomacy and is ...

7/
The topic that started me thinking along these lines was Trump's repeated use that his Ukraine call was 'PERFECT'.

Could Trump have been signaling "Legally Perfect".

Legally Perfect is a concept used in law and diplomacy and is ...

And you may want to watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVeDKuHPDK8