-@TH3WH17ERABB17-Q- Questions. White House Insider's posting twitter account-

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm not saying the Q thing is unintentional, but I will say this book feels like a rush job with poor editing. I get how you can miss something like pubic/public on one reading, but on multiple read-throughs and more than once?

So the book is possibly rushed through production and somehow Q slips tidbits into it or Q alters what was copied to the Wiki post? I think the second is more likely, but you never know.

Oh, I can imagine there are typos. I have read similar propaganda political books with bad editing, terrible & crass writing BUT...

...I also have thought the bad editing was intentional.

It's carefully crafted propaganda. I assume everything is intentional and that it's not sloppiness.

Consider this...you see a glowing book about a political figure -- not a single typo...it's been poured over in every way to ensure the reader is dazzled.

It's ALL carefully drafted, composed, and proofread. What's printed is exactly what was intended in all it's detail -- good and bad.

***

If you are interested...here's a blog post I wrote on a related example: Deconstructing Obama Disinformation Agents

The book is most likely part of a much larger plan.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

If your intent is to discredit Trump, then you'd want this to look as good as you could. You'd want it to be as credible as possible and even if the story and facts are thin, you're putting lipstick on that pig.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
The book is most likely part of a much larger plan.

I know that much. I'm still up in the air as to which plan it's part of. As quickly as the left fell on it, it's either a terrible pivot away from the Special Counsel and back toward the Amendment 25 hope which is why I wonder if it's a rush job.

Or, it's a stalking horse intended to get them in a lather and looking away from the real target which makes this deliberate.

I haven't decided which it is yet.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Perhaps the numbers '6' and '10' are also important.

My thinking is that the chapters they appear in the heads of, may be important.

Noticed this about the two words:
GQLD
HQME

sequentially descending order letters alphabetically

From the TIME article JadedandCynical posted earlier:

Each president leaves his mark on the building, and Trump has wasted little time making his. The modern art favored by the Obama family is mostly gone, replaced with classic oils, including portraits of Trump’s favorite predecessors, like Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt. Gold curtains have replaced the maroon ones in the Oval Office, and military-service flag stands have been added around the room, topped by battle ribbons and held in place by heavy brass bases that Trump praises to visitors.

But few rooms have changed so much so fast as his dining room, where he often eats his lunch amid stacks of newspapers and briefing sheets. A few weeks back, the President ordered a gutting of the room. “We found gold behind the walls, which I always knew. Renovations are grand,” he says, boasting that contractors from the General Services Administration resurfaced the walls and redid the moldings in two days. “Remember how hard they worked? They wanted to make me happy.”

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MotherMayEye

If your intent is to discredit Trump, then you'd want this to look as good as you could. You'd want it to be as credible as possible and even if the story and facts are thin, you're putting lipstick on that pig.

Agree.

That is where I am at.

But, more specifically...I think this book is supposed to accomplish something *other* than casting legitimate questions about the competence of the Trump administration and the loyalty of those in it.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

So you think it's a stalking horse, a massive distraction?

I hope you're right, but the competence of the left lately leaves open the possibility that they've rushed it try to create a new narrative because they know the Russia probe is going nowhere.

I'm undecided at the moment.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: ketsuko

It would be interesting to know how many typos made it to print.

If these were the only two....and in chapter headings?

This CT is so entertaining.

Out of 413 uses of the letter Q in the book, those are the only 2 misuses...I just counted.

...and BOTH in Chapter titles.
Impossible to be accidental.

Another oddity...the "t" in Chapter six header "At HQME" is the only letter in any chapter header that is not capitalized.

a reply to: ketsuko

I just think the book has been published exactly as intended....typos and all. As you said, 'pubic' would not be caught by spellcheck and even that I still think was intentional. It obfuscates the meaningfulness of the 'Q' typos and makes it easier to take the content of the material less-seriously.

I'm also undecided as to *why.* My personal theories range from very hopeful to completely cynical. I won't spoil the thread with any of them though.

I'm not sure we can gauge the intended effect yet. I just think it's wisest to assume typos are intentional in this day and age and considering the media attention given to the book and it's influence on the public.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: ketsuko

It would be interesting to know how many typos made it to print.

If these were the only two....and in chapter headings?

This CT is so entertaining.

From running through it rather quickly, there are some punctuation issues and some words that are slang that get hits, but these appear to be the only two true typos in the entire book.

Another thought ... If this book is a distraction or possibly even a trap, what is the content in those two chapters? Most everyone now understands this book is pack of rumors and gossip that can't be substantiated peppered liberally with outright lies. But like the dossier, the press is eager to make it all news as if it's fact anyhow.

Can anything in those chapters be damaging or used in any way if reported? Like leaking certain false stories to catch the leakers.

Has anyone garnered anything at all from reading the Q chapters of this book?

I have been reading chapter 6, but the flow is atrocious and seems like the author is trying to get as much dirt in as possible that some of it seems unrelated from one paragraph to the other.

Other than the mentions of Uber and the list of CEO's I have gained nothing of note from it.

Other than a headache.

a reply to: ketsuko

Ding ding ding

Was my thought exaclty. Just like they did with Brian Ross' source.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Has he surfaced, btw?

At HQME (6)
Trump returns to WH from CD, today 1/06/18.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Another thought ... If this book is a distraction or possibly even a trap, what is the content in those two chapters? Most everyone now understands this book is pack of rumors and gossip that can't be substantiated peppered liberally with outright lies. But like the dossier, the press is eager to make it all news as if it's fact anyhow.

Can anything in those chapters be damaging or used in any way if reported? Like leaking certain false stories to catch the leakers.

Chapter 6 does go quite a bit into someone "leaking" about Trump stumbling around in a robe, not able to find the light switches, which the author portrays as Trump feeling like it was an incredibly huge deal that he wore a bathrobe.

a reply to: ketsuko

Brian Ross is returning to ABC News, but with a different job

By Brian Stelter January 5, 2018: 9:47 AM ET
Brian Ross's four-week unpaid suspension is over. He is coming back to ABC News -- but not to his old job.
His title will still be "chief investigative correspondent." But he will be moving to Lincoln Square Productions, a separate unit of ABC that is based a few blocks away from the news division headquarters.

CNN.

He's been made a desk jockey.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
At HQME (6)
Trump returns to WH from CD, today 1/06/18.

Maybe the little "t" was to draw attention to it being Trump Home?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
At HQME (6)
Trump returns to WH from CD, today 1/06/18.

Seems this would suggest something big happening to Goldman on the 10th.....If so then I would be pretty blown away.

My knowledge of publishing is only tangential...but hasn't WL just screwed Wolff out of $$$,$$$ by leaking the PDF on it's site?