nah, both are ongoing in parallel. not a big deal anyway, but next bread number should jump ahead to correct, though
*11495, since the ebake doubled 92
>What would you like to talk about or learn this evening?
-pastebins vs live links to non-qr-general threads
-newfag section, how to properly present and where
-decluttering the 3rd post = work done this pm to reconfigure a lot of the dough
///
just saying with a 92, an ebake92 and a 93, the next one should be 95… no?
well with active BO or BV they could just renumber the threads and solve it that way, no need to lock a thread with both Q and CM
>often, we talk about that stuff towards the end so we can give newbies a chance to ask questions.
yeah, wouldn't want to step on an eager baker. could just go on in the thread 11, too
well, silence is golden, you could say. i'd rather they do nothing than repeat previous mistakes…
and now Q posts in the other thread, kek
seeing double here
>A quick glance and it's perfect. Bravo.
thanks, but changed the order of posts 3&4 a lot, that rustled feathers earlier… warrants a close look, considering resistance to change. update should be solid… if anyone feels some sections in 3/4 would work better otherwise, jump in, i tried a good few combinations earlier to see what fits
oh, i wasn't worried about execution, baked a good while back - rusty anon not Rusty anon, if you will…
it's more about where i wound up wanting to fix the pastebin shortcuts+newfag section+room in the often cramped 3rd post, and if it could be tighter still
>very public.
could be using unlisted vids.
they'd become relatively public once published, but you still need the link to see them at all, so it's much less visible
pretty comfy tech room/lobby to the loud main room, it's nice
yeah, that part's always a challenge… but also hella fun.
a bitch to deal with when the board's fucked, though, that's gotta not be fun…
what i had the biggest problem with?
the damn notables…
i know, i know, to many it's the primary purpose, but i always prefered the posting and organizing to running after notables, dealing with requests/complaints etc… i can admit if it wasn't for those i could probably bake a lot more often…
true, makes sense.
but i came here, out of the bustle of the general, where discussions re this are the purpose… so… if not here, where/when?
it's still - and has been all day - in feedback mode, i didn't hijack the bake to impose it - and you're reacting a little as if i did, which is why i've been so surprised with the reaction(s).
but hey, whycantwebefrens and all, i like it here after all
>comfyfeatherspicrelated
>Memorize it by the '3/2 rule'
>3 >>> and 2 // and the board name sits in the middle
ah, das gud
>Remembered the time Q said that to mouthy anon.
>Best night
hm, lot of competition on that front, but a solid contender…
now i can't quite forget but a few months back an anon added a bit to the story, said DTTT admitted a little later his message was faked? not sure that's what it was
>Was that real? I mean, did the team called that guy?
been wondering same for quite a while.
one theory was that, if you read the longer cap for context, you see that by the time Q posted, DTTT had figured out his mistake, so maybe the call was then used to pass on info - what DTTT quoted over the phone and then posted on the board, in that that message could just as well have been an anon post.
or it was all a show, i have no idea.
as i said, i vaguely recall someone saying DTTT admitted making all or part of it up, but don't remember
>notes/Any way i can help?
well, for a while, there was a more regular practice of split tasks: notetaker and baker working in tandem.
it's pretty much come back by now, though, no?
there was a lot of resistance to it back then, didn't have much allies there but when we did it worked wonders.
> Not triggered nor upset.
great, haven't been all too diplomatic either.
the reason i jumped in today in the first place, was irritation at seeing the same old baking problems coming up again (arguments over pastebins=no room, etc), with added uncertainty with the patch anon and his how to start an OP posts (and if it's him or if i'm just confusing anons) etc etc.
//
dunno if anon who posted this in 11 is around?
>>11732 (11)
>positioning matters just not content
>yes, the welcome page has a lot of CEREMONY
curious to hear feedback re the 1st post in
>>11872 Q Research General #11999: parallel universe practice bread
now
> >>11872 Q Research General #11999: parallel universe practice bread
also, regarding the reshufffling of posts 3&4 in there, it ended up being a deliberate strategic decision to separate GMT maps section from WarRoom section, being that those have regular updates and having them both at once increases changes of a mess - made more sense to have warroom closer to the meme archives, and reciprocally the posts/breads archives collated
>some great baking stories to put in the dough
can't say i had much epic happen when i did, but what remains most is the memory of that feeling, that incredible rush..
toking and riding the bread that just flies by as you tweak your next post and hunt for notables - and going out for a quick take out club sandwich among normie city folk with that insane step in my shoe of BEING THE FUCKING BAKER for a few moments…
dat was sweet.
> able to shut down shill bread and get things back on track.
oh well that reminds me of another of my fave souvenirs, not my baking but i think it was shortly before i did…
the usual shortage of bakers, and it was the highpoint of Nassim shitposting…
welp, nassimposter took the bake, and fucked it up real bad but in many hilarious ways…
ohman, anons were pissed. off.
but a few of them learned to bake right then and there.
lesson learned…
>not real fond of new format, but always willing to talk.
i tried to have it close to what it was… it's the newfag section in there you mostly didn't like, right?
it's true there's more room in the 3rd post now with the shortened GMT maps sections (yet another proposed update that's been lingering around back n forth. normally i'm for the most links possible, but they're all on the same thread anyway).
or are there issues with reshuffled 3&4 too?
on those: >>11970
>Can you say the one or two things that most put you off about note-taking?
main thing, might sound dumb, but… ME.
the pressure/perfectionism.
not wanting to miss, wanting to evaluate, having to juggle that with speed of bread, etc.
also had to learn the hard way about a few tech issues, but once past that, twas ok.
but yeah, biggest hiccup for notables was all in the mental.
why i liked it so much having partnership with anon who liked gathering notables but couldn't bake, team-up was perfect
>why i liked it so much having partnership with anon who liked gathering notables but couldn't bake, team-up was perfect
i ended up covering most of the notables anyway a lot of the time, but was in a comfy headspace to do so knowing i had a taker, i could switch to focus on other things (or deal with shitty puter)
kek, made that one ages ago, seems like another life
yeah, sure.
main thing that annoys me still is the pastebins to link threads, but i'll bide my time. for now.
the rest just follows, it's all the same info re-ordered, not a revolution
(also, pretty much all the other feedback i got earlier for the test thread was positive, seemed fine to most… anyway)
>if that was you
maybe? chimed in sometimes, but also annoyed at the barkers, i'm just trying to get things fixed because i could see a clear path to do it, tried a few things to suggest a solution(s)…
you can see
> >>11872 Q Research General #11999: parallel universe practice bread
and ponder it all
MORNING!
henlo all
man what a wild Q posting nite
but still
um
on what was discussed yesterday pm + class…
not rushing anyone, but any reason NOT to go ahead with revised bake?
>>11872 ?
now again, i:
-didn't impose it on the real board
-came over here to discuss it
-presented alternatives
-took in objections and corrections
-reposted for feedback
-asked for feedback
-asked again for more because not that much given
-most feeback eventually given is positive, negative feedback not specified or all that constructive because stated objections aren't so related to actual content but more a reflection of a single baker's present feelz? ( >>12022 ).
Again, i'm just sat there asking what parts are still a problem so it can be adjusted and good to go, but i got nothing.
Tryin to workshop here, just to implement basic tweaks - in order to settle things that have been problems for quite a while - which might just be a good part of why dude is so burned out and doesn't want change in the first place, funnily enough.
welp, a baker took the recipe, been a few breads now, haven't seen complaints (yet)
well that… escalated. good GOD.
what the HELL are you guys doing?
this is how you responsibly manage change and baking decisions?
by making a scene and going full scorched earth, spending bread after bread screaming at anons, accusing one after the other… look at you bunch of paranoid fucks, this is ridiculous.
way to show you're NOT a bunch of self-proclaimed ruling class, control-freak hypocritical elitist gatekeepers.
let's recap.
2 days ago, on the qr board:
-"ah shit, again problems with the dough. i tried to help them with that many times before, but those curmudgeon baker dick-taters always mess it up back"
-"come to comms, there we can take time to talk and think, that is where we do these things"
-"well ok, i admit i do have apprehensions about the club but i can try i guess"
-"no no it's not a baker club we're not like that anymore those are old rumors"
-"ok so here is a proposed solution to many problems, basically ALL THE SAME INFO just reshuffled around"
-"ALL say it's good, except one who doesn't like it, but won't really say why, because, you know, it's all so tiresome, you know? anyway these things take time, child."
-"ok, ok, fine."
yesterday:
-"…" [crickets]
-"ok. but, um, you know those issues that were why do this in the first place? they're still around, and going to be… why not just go ahead with this one? all the other guys liked it, what's wrong with it now?" * >>12083
-"…" [crickets]
-"ok. well, i'll just keep this work pastebin updated so it's ready to go, just in case. Oh, anons are pointing out baker missed a Q drop, there's a deadlink in the globals, wrong caps for a Q drop… is he seeing all this? well i'm seeing so might as well add to the parallel paste. New bread, he saw just one of the fixes needed, here brah you can try this one out. Oh, he took the whole thing, oh well ok. Maybe see if he keeps it for next bread? Oh he does. No anon complaints, but better keep the baker crew updated: guys, it went live…"
-"looking good", "great, all fine until the shills come over to fuck it up"… * >>12096 , >>12097
and fuck it up they did. because when some controlfreak came over and was outraged, he just flat out reverted to old bread. IMMEDIATELY AND UNILATERALLY.
all while REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEING and kvetching at the fuckers who change the dough… immediately and unilaterally. Irony proof? probably not.
but the thing is, i don't know what dough he took to go back in time, but it messed up way more than just the cosmetics that got him so furious.
WR section reverted back to an older state, the stupid fucking pastebins instead of research threads came back, meme ammo section reverted to an older section…
YEAH, NICE CLEAN UP BRO. WAY TO DEAL WITH A "CRISIS", WHAT GLORIOUS LEADERSHIP YOU ARE DEMONSTRATING.
all the while, now anons are getting pissed off because they don't quite understand what's going on and they see a mad baker putsching the dough.
bakers jump on a narrative that it was an evil plan by evil anons or worse still their mortal enemies the endchans or gerbil or sgrvbl or someone else (look i don't into this namefaggotry. i tolerate it for bakers because they're useful, but holyfuck does this whole episode show WHY anons are so weary of fucking namefags and their lazy asses sat on their deluded thrones of "authority".
IT IS AT THIS POINT IN THE STORY THAT YOU ARE KINDLY INVITED TO NOTICE THAT ALL THE KVETCHING AND COMPLAINING AND REEEEEEING CAMEAFTERTHE BAKERCLUB BARGED IN TO GET THINGS THEIR WAY.
NOTWITH THE INTRODUCTION OF THE REVISED DOUGH.
except for when GMT map anon came in, but that's another story.
i mean seriously, holyfuck: >>12106 , >>12120
>graphics anon..
>SHUT THE FUCK UP
>you tactless, impatient piece of ungrateful SHIT.
>leave the ego at the door…I know that's hard to do when you think you have it all figured out and are above anyone else here.Your attitude and demeaning comments at everyone is on display for all to see.
i approve of that message. this is just embarassing. at that point the baker club started going after each other, it was an ugly sight.
but you know what's funny? reducing the redundant GMT part was neither my suggestion nor my work, another baker anon did, and i just went with it because it made sense.
you know, this "collaboration" they speak of…
then all sorts of things happened, haven't seen all of it, especially catching up on QR, but…
(1/3)
…cuntinued. 2/2
> you didn't discuss these changes with anyone, and took it upon yourself to bake and change it all on your own.
no, i came here to discuss all these changes, AS I WAS ASKED TO DO, and did, and i asked again and again for feedback, and wasn't the one who baked it, and did none of this "on my own"… it was all part of the process.
>Why should one person who no one knows, come in here and change the dough?
because sometimes all it takes to solve a problem is one person?
because i was invited in here to do exactly that?
what the fuck else is this cuntry club for anyway?
also notice this weasely shit: "one person who no one knows"
OF COURSE YOU DON'T KNOW ME. I AM AN ANON. IT'S HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE.
WHAT PART OF THAT IS SO DIFFICULT FOR YOU FUCKS TO UNDERSTAND?
doesn't mean i haven't been along you pretty much all that time, posting and baking, and ebaking as anon.
i just have never, ever, ever tried to build a persona out of it, as you creeps are on about.
it's all about "who is this", "who are you"… who fucking cares? LOOK AT THE WORK. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR.
>- Removed the 'Newfag' Section which replaced the Research Threads list by someone who didn't discuss the change with anons
but that was already fixed: yet another bug that was a direct result of triggered baker reverting back without even looking at what he was doing.
>All i wish at the moment is that the bread remains mainly as it was a month ago, before this whole circus began.
bakers being bakers fighting for the STATUS QUO - if not even going back in time.
>bc i baked a LOT of his wonky dough's last Sept/Oct: sgrvl.
>Recognized the format right away
ooooh look at the detective work! baker lives on baker street, what a sherlock.
but no.
unless that's a name YOU've given me, i am not that anon.
>Sgrvl never learned to bake on /qr/; finds it too confusing. Perhaps bc he is confused himself–some kind of schizoid problem, he would admit that himself. Endchan anons know but maybe not everyone here does. Anons there tried to help him but he gets agitated sometimes, that's why he persists and cannot be deterred. Must be handled with unyeilding firmness both for his sake and ours.
geezus, we're into deep psychoanalytics now. just unfortunate that it's all on the wrong person.
then it gets into ever more paranoid territory:
>This was all a ploy to push anons to ENDchan.
>It was the point of all of the shilling. Endchan is a honeypot.
just all sorts of wild accusations, completely unrelated to me.
now, are the shills that came in the shitstorm related to Endchan? maybe, i don't know.
but we all saw this coming, the few level-headed bakers there agreed, of course shills might come in and use this to scream.
way to fall DEEP into it, guys.
way to overreact, get angry, get the board angry, and fall back into a position that favors the shills.
>The positive things about today is that everyone's aware of their infiltration and underhandedness now.
i, um… maybe not the best lesson learned, but ok
>We can all also keep a very close eye on the dough and any changes revert back right away.
you should always keep a close eye. problem is, for a while you've been keeping eyes closed, so there were issues.
>And if they ask for anything to be put in the dough again, we can tell them where to go.
DUDE what did we just say about shills?
this kind of over-reaction is EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT:
-legit anon comes in to help
-is welcomed by Rusty and a few nice bakers
-proceeds to help, shills jump in to confuse things
-REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO HELP IS EVIL AND MUST BE BANNED
don't you see the problem?
…cuntinued. 3/3
>still got the country threads unconsolidated
sigh, again with the consolidation. NO. ONE. CLICKS. ON. A. PASTEBIN.
>i think it's just sgrvl, he is not entirely "there" mentally. not a hypothesis. he can be both paranoid and grandiose.
again with the psychiatry and "confirmed" feelz.
>i just confronted him about it on /qr/ not unkindly but i did ask. he says he didn't do it bu t in an unconvincing way, by citing an alibi.
has it not crossed your oblivious mind for a single second that you MIGHT BE WRONG? i was deep asleep then, definitely not me.
>Feel bad as well b/c yesterday in here I said that practice dough looked gud. Thought it was a student baker legitimately practicing and had formatted the dough how they wanted to practice.
well, yes, sort of.
>i asked him but he didn't answer although he's still posting on /qr/ right now. he's very easy to peg, so much compulsivity.
no wonder the poor schizo he was confronting was confused.
"very easy to peg", huh? you little detective, you.
>Well I guess we have to keep our eyes open for that anon who was pushing for dough changes, and any other sneaky additons to the dough.
HELLO
LOOK AT ALL THIS SNEAKY I DONE DID
> if Endchan faggots start on bakers again, ever, there’ll be war. Just sayin’.
just flat out stating to the shills how and where to attack them to create yet more fighting and kvetching. sad.
>> yeah, the shills haven't spoken up yet. IF they do, it was all done out in the open, where people can see it, so… kek.
>So from where I’m sitting, you said that anyone who spoke out about the dough being changed was a shill. Am I mistaken?
these are the great intellects at work baking: "anyone who spoke out"… sigh, no, you pathetic simpleton.
then they start getting mad at each other again
>Fucking no, I was talking about the endchan people for God's sake.
then they continue being confused by their own theories that aren't theories because they know better
>Why would the endchan crew complain about the dough being changed when it was them who changed it?
>Why would they change it sneakily and then complain about it?
>Doesn’t make sense.
So these are the bakers, folks.
Just a peek.
Apologies for the shitshow, but looking at the dough now, and gazing upon the fuming remains of this battle, i'm glad it happened.
This accidental kick to the hornet's nest seemed to be badly needed.
It's only unfortunate that many bakers conclusions is to be even more entrenched in their clique and traditions.
I'm not going to pursue the "debating", infighting and drama, you guys are experts at it on your own.
Apologies and congratulations to Rusty, because he was one of the few how was proper and focused on work all along.
there were others, but i haven't followed IDs or names or anything (anon creed you know). You guys really, really rock.
and you are absolute SAINTS to be dealing with this whining, screaming, controlfreak bunch of cunts.
have a lovely day
*oh right, just one more thing: if i wanted to SNEAKILY change things all on my own, i could have just grabbed the bake and done it.
but it was all done out through here, following the process of posting and feedback and collective work.
cheers!
HELLO, lovely morning all
reactions have been interesting, haven't they?
fascinating to see unfold…
(just 2 posts today)
>shit-stirring on a grand scale. not what we need right now. intentional?
Look, i was pissed off and ashamed at the pathetic reaction of this bunch of oblivious, powermad little capos.
YES, i dropped a 3-post wall of text, but that just makes it easier to skip over completely, instead of drawing out replies and keeping it going.
as many here have been quite busy doing…
>who the fuck are you
>your opinions
read what i wrote, you'll get the answer.
> That’s not how changes are made.
but that is WHAT I WAS ACCUSED OF, and repeatedly so.
Just stating the obvious.
>That was an organized raid by Endchan, and it was done by the same people that attack bakers 24/7.
so, this guy. dude didn't read a thing i wrote, and is still convinced he got it all figured out.
no pause, no introspection, nothing.
just posting and fuming, posting and fuming.
>they do not do it as the result of discussions here.
Look, there's no reason to keep on arguing this, but the type of upkeep i was proposing is rare.
I was talking about it on the general, and bakers/anons said there's no time for that, but comms is there for exactly that kind of thing.
anon wasn't wrong when he said:
>the shills haven't spoken up yet. IF they do, it was all done out in the open, where people can see it, so… kek
>The blow up last night started when I asked
well that's interesting, you see, because i didn't go that far.
that's all YOUR blow up, i was just talking about the hustle around the bake reversion…
and here you say
> I asked
>"Why the fuck do we need this shit in the dough?"
but you weren't attacking the endchan stuff, you asked about the research threads…
> A picture is worth a thousand words.
and truth is worth a thousand lies…
>you're right on the money in a few places there
Thank you for actually taking time to read.
>I had no idea GMT anon would be so upset about it
ME NEITHER GEESH. Expected some grumbling maybe, but definitely not this. wew
>Too much of a hurry and now look at the situation
true, but still. shitstorm ALL came from GMT overreaction, bad reversion management, and SHILLS JUST JUMPING RIGHT IN TO EXPLOIT THE OPPORTUNITY.
that might singlehandedly be the most interesting about all this, seeing how i would be working with you guys here, but then on QR there's always another anon or two also jumping in, warroom/notwarroom, bakers think it's me, much confusion is had.
That's one of the things that so pissed me off about kvetching bakers here just losing any shit they had on hand over the endchan thing.
Could you be any more of a whining, attention-whore bitch about it?
Could you do any more to point out to your would be enemies HOW and WHERE and WHY to attack you, maybe put up a big flashing neon sign?
I expected more warfare-wise warriors, around here, is all. Sun tzu n sheit.
just look at all this stupid pointless infighting
>>12215 , >>12217 , >>12218 , >>12219 , >>12220 , >>12221 , >>12222 and on and on and on
>You attacked me.
<no you attacked me
>no huh you attack me
<no you attacked me
>My WORDS perfectly showed
my words my bake my history bla bla me me me me me me ME ME ME ME ME ME
>I saw what was happening and said what I did so they would attack me. Part you are missing GYB. That's why I specifically said "Why theFUCK"
>I was posting the way I did so they would continue to attack me and expose themselves.
now this, THIS, is special, though.
this raging ball of fury is right here accusing everyone of being divisive and problematic and whatnot, but he just casually admits to throwing Napalm on the hot coals of the reversion mess.
amazing.
>why do you namefag
because it's shameless, unrepentant and obviously dumber than it thinks it's smart.
>I will defend /QR/ - Q - and the Anons all day everyday with all of my abilities.
you THINK you do, and that's great if have fighting spirit.
but has any part of what you did on the general or here ACTUALLY HELPED?
you admitted deliberately posting inflammatory content on the board just to rile it up and get screenshots, wtf?
>You're working extremely hard to ignore the fact that up bread heplainlyadmit to posting both the neck yourself and fag boi comment which came from 2 separate IDs one being the baker.
yeah, so what even if he did?
YOU admitted to postingWHY THE FUCKjust to get anons mad.
that's a thousand times worse.
>GMT consolidation would make sense.
>except if you're the GMT guy
> , it's a good idea but not worth fighting over.
all true, completely agree.
sort of shoved back the room issue for later, but i like the graphicmaps, so i'm happy with the full list.
>Somehow, we all have to step back, let the dust settle.
yup, we did.
>Dough is ok for now, we are all ok, no use worrying about who said what to whom.
in a friendly circle of magic unicorns, sure.
but this ended up being an involuntary stress-test. Most passed, some failed.
>This got riled up again after the three page post
Judge them by their fruits, look who's going on and on enjoying throwing shit, take note.
Infantile squabbling, appeal to authority, projection galore… a lot of it ain't pretty.
and the three page post was a necessary moment of transparency.
have you seen it on the general?
it's interesting, i saw the bun later reposted TWICE by other anons (could be more but those i saw), and it got absolutely no traction at all (thank god).
>If anything I've helped foster and mentor bakers, provided them with work area
absolutely, don't mind him Rusty.
you'll notice i took time begininng and end of my rant to point out you were way more than legit - and some other bakers too, just didn't take their names.
>this kindergarten tit-for-tat squabbling is not a productive use of time
amen
>why was last 'baking seminar' so much different than others?
because i was there?
> shill bakers have completely given up on using /comms to blend in, now they are panicking and trying to make this bread appear as ridiculous as possible.
could be.
they sure haven't seen all this as a growing experience.
>qrb
was a welcome oasis of peace when stalin BO made his moves. haven't been in ages, but glad it's there.
>not clear to me that anybody is shilling for endchan
exactly, but that's the shill narrative that got slipped in.
>paste was almost certainly inserted by sgrvl whorememberis not very balanced.
i explained how it went down, it was (sort of) ME and i am NOT sgvrl
>Endchan is not a boogeyman
that's the shill narrative that they jumped on, though.
as i said, me between in the middle of the crossfire, it's been very interesting.
it's one to say "after we do this some shills might use to exploit", and another to see it all right there.
and ongoing still.
>Because they find it difficult to let go. No other job here requires so much letting go as baking. No other job requires as much flexibility–or forgiveness. In the end, everything that happens here has to be water under the bridge.
wise man
Again, apologies for the good ones in here who got toes stepped on and ears ringing from the noise, but as annoying as the shitshow can be, it's also been very instructive.
I did it all wrong, being mad, but i did present a good few serious questions to the board here.
How bakers chose to react, well, that's their choice and their record. We seem to agree most of it ain't pretty.
Also, to conclude, i didn't really mean to be the Trickster in all this, just fell into it.
>you didn't "do it all wrong"
well, taking the ragebait and sperging didn't help much: if i'd taken those same 3posts, removed all the swearing and insults and just went cold, i'd have increased the chances of someone actually reading thousandfold, it's just a fact of life.
glad at least some did. but as i said, it was at that point a tactical choice to drop a yuge bun and let it rest, leaving all day and night for others to either just skip it all and go on or react, and by however path taken, show their true colors: admittedly, falling into ragebait myself, you could say. think i managed to keep it at snark level today, at least. getting smoother.
>great mix 'eh?
hehe, indeed
>Thank you for this. Someone at least, read my comment correctly…
welp, seemed pretty damn obvious to me.
also what's forgotten in this whole SNEAKILY thing is that when the new recipe went live, i was there for a good few breads, asking for feedback from warroom anon, spreadsheet anon, anyone willing to answer, pointing out the change and asking if it's all good, etc. Full transparency.
*oh, another thing this event has shown: so many anons don't care and/or notice at all, it's pretty funny.
we're all at war defending the integrity of the dough, and rightly so, but get hilariously fixated on details. (but still, important details, don't get me wrong)
>Apparently I got roped into this as well.. Sorry for the mess in defending myself…
das ok, i got roped just the same, just made a different kind of mess.
but look who went and stepped in it…
to me one of the biggest WTFs to remain of your whole kerfuffle with that "anon" is that he seems to be most mad at you for admitting to replying to his ragebait, which is a bit weird when you take a step back.
huzzah
>one of the favorite tools of our opposition is to introduce friendly fire by making us doubt each other…
yeah, somewhat guilty as charged, having thrown a few grenades in.
but then again, sometimes drawing fire helps reveal who is on which side…
>Shadilay
breaking my rule by replying so soon, but feels all so comfy now, take care
wussup
>research threads were pushed for in the dough by the same people that were pushing the endchan links in WR. Their motives were clear.
THEIR motives, ok, maybe.
What about anons who would approve of having those threads in there, and chime in? Would they not immediately be counted as "endchain raid" as well in your duplicitous charade?
You are so utterly and obliviously sure of yourself, and yet you deliberately lie and pursue anon infighting on the board (there was a lot more than just those screenshots).
Worse still, you blame everyone and everything but yourself, and fall right back into it after being called out, not missing a beat.
You've really shown yourself, through and through.
>>so, this guy. dude didn't read a thing i wrote, and is still convinced he got it all figured out.
>>no pause, no introspection, nothing.
>>just posting and fuming, posting and fuming.
>Pics Related.
are unrelated to those 3 lines, which still hold true.
>your teammate their
if you could read (or write) proficiently, you'd have read those endchan shills aren't my teammates at all.
honestly, to me you're much, much, much more likely to be one of them - or their mortal enemy trying to make em look bad.
either way, your tactics are immoral, destructive, untrustworthy and not quite effective, so you fell into shill territory long ago.
>Your attitude sucks, anon.
my attitude changed, anon.
can't say the same for all of us here.
came in uncertain but willing, got mad/disgusted at incompetence, calmed down.
have mostly kept to single post replies instead of spreading shit all over.
>who are you, anyway?
i adressed that question in first 3post reply.
just an anon who never played your baker games.
just because people don't chat & chill don't mean they don't have eyes on.
except this time, i opened my mouth, too.
>What do you want here?
>It is however quite possible that some of his followers are either shills
i dun tried to tells you, i just came in here to get some things fixed.
we did, things were fine but we expected shills to come in the opening, and come in they did.
now i'm not sure about the nature of them, though, likely a mix of pro-endchans and anti-endchans, but either way clearly THAT was the main focus/story.
but you either haven't read me, or don't believe me. choice is yours, kek
>This part is still confusing to me, i'm sure there are shills taking advantage of the situation but not sure who all the players or agendas are.
exactly. judge em by their fruits/smell, and see, that's a start.
> I am particularly interested in 274287, what his agenda is. Because he's the one whose posts started the conflict. He needs to come clean.
brah, i wrote 5+ walls of text ( >>12410 , >>12416 ) and you still want MORE?
please re-read what you have already, i've been pretty direct.
and my intervention only "started" a conflict that was latent and had to burst sooner or later, and whose roots had been rotting for months.
or a band. i'd jam with Clown Baker
>Paid shills can obviously take advantage of this situation to create confusion, division, etc.
i'd say they are, this was the main point of my 2post update: not ongoing drama, but more info of how they jumped on this episode.
i was caught right in the crossfire, that's what's so interesting about it, vantage point.
after that still more shills
calvin & hobz <3
> their warroom strategy to take over the dough
what would make sense is, the baker that accepted my new recipe pastebin and just rolled with it WAS one of them, glad to take it because it had their latest updates.
while the jaded bakers here, tired of dealing with WR stuff, hung on to an older version of the war room section. (see 11 or early 12 for such admissions - hey it's only normal, i'm just saying)
>What i still don't know is who this guy is and what his game is.
can i suggest reading my posts?
>Did not reply to my challenge:
you might throw a glove next, i should be careful.
if you're so curious about me and my motives, get off that high horse a minute, re-read my posts.
i'd recommend the same thing for TOR bro, but clearly there's no hope for that thing.
so it's OSS baker, at least allegedly?
>du•plic•i•tous
> Given to or marked by deliberate deceptiveness in behavior or speech.
>exhibiting duplicity{2}; deceitful; double-dealing.
>adj.
>Given to or marked by deliberate deceptiveness in behavior or speech
now go read PROJECTION
and he squirms away from this accusation again
>I don't even own 2 computers
2 computers on the same provider would still just be one ID, you idiot.
squirms.
>So you're okay with tricking anons into bickering?
>Because you definitely own that slide.
>and you definitely claimed to knowingly do it to draw..whatever out.
still true, and still squirms away from answering to this.
just goes on with the delusional "LALALALLA I WAS RITE U ARE WRONG LALALLA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" attitude.
and yet i'm the "chaos starter"
yeah, would be a shame to lose posts, not being ironic.
the class was over anyway, but these kind of things are bound to happen and i wouldn't want to mess with the teaching, now.
and there will always be interventions like >>12530 , >>12525
time for a Baking General?
>random shit-stirring
bruh… "random", really? RANDOM?
again, y'all have acted like i was born the day i came in here - because the baker clique effect is real.
it is tolerated by anons, because baking is crucial and not all namefaggoty is necessarily bad, but… not all deal very well with the power and control.
& if any anon coming in here without your baggage is seen as shit-stirring, then maybe that means there was a LOT of shit laying around.
as i said, i've admitted i could've been a LOT more diplomatic, to say the least, but none of what i wrote or did was just random… pretty sure if you read up my history you'll see i got mad around the 3poster, but besides that haven't been feeding the fire like some have.
also, maybe try and be a little less paranoid?
could be, some anons coming in here really are anons coming in here? maybe?
now how are they supposed to feel welcomed being called out as endchan shills?
takes more than that to run me away, but i can see the problem.
anyway, if you're interested, read my posts and i might take precise questions if you have em, but we're running out of room here.