>>11517
>with the same tripcoded anon
This is why tripfaggotry and namefaggotry are so awful and counter to the entire premise of being anon.

>>11521
>did Q clearly state what delta were and were not for?
>would sincerely like to know what is in the drop history in this subject
Yes; re-read drops and spreadsheet. It's in there. Deltas were NEVER for the purpose of comparing with rando anons (or tripfaggots') posts. They were to validate that Q was working with POTUS. That was what the "how many times... mathematical improbability" referred to.

Even the "tippy top" was done for that purpose.

Somehow the focus has gone from paying attention to MIL tweets, Press secy, POTUS schedule, the stealth accounts to a tripfag. Wheels spun, time wasted on the personal and not relevant, meanwhile whatever Q/POTUS wants to get across is ignored.