Is my intuition on this right? My sense is that we have been given a "box" (via Q) to play in as part of The Plan. We have had to learn our roles and their boundaries in a kind of osmotic process. We cannot be given direct and explicit orders, but that doesn't stop us forming a fully functioning militia in an information war. Our contribution is very real and meaningful, just it has to be aligned to the overall outcome.
The "box" keeps us from straying into areas that are unhelpful — so we don't hunt down anything about covert operational activities on our side or publicise then, for instance. We refrain from anything that could give the other side cause to paint us as violent or unlawful. We anchor this in the pursuit of equal justice under the rule of constitutional law, and leave many of our personal beliefs aside for that goal.
What is "in scope" and "out of scope" for the role of an anon?
Not a question I can answer. I have certainly learned so much from and about anons. Based upon our on perspectives and individuality(s). Some anons are gang busters, while others are very sensitive (in a good way). This of course factors in to what any interpretation of the scope might be. What are the boundaries? Depends on the anon, I suppose:) I probably missed the mark by a mile, haha. And I often wonder how difficult it must be for MG operating another level completely:):) Thank you for putting up with the rest of us!
