>an anon tells the baker the bread number is wrong

>baker replies with: Whole reason for that was due to software, which when it is left out works fine, so really I could stick it on the end or not at all and things would be ok.. I will put it after every word! kek

>an anon nominates a notable

>baker replies:

NEWSFLASH.. the board is having issues, I am not running down every fucking things that is coming up, shit is being tweaked RIGHT NOW.. leave me alone about it nothing I can do.

>other anons tell the baker about the bread change and ask about why he's reacting in the way he is in a constructive way

>baker replies with:

>SHILL SQUAD OUT IN FORCE I am not editing shit. I am going to focus on the task at hand. You fuckers totally derailed me for a moment.. Hallmonitor fag that comes up with something to bitch every GODDAMN bread can fuck RIGHT OFF.

>FUCK OFF. Kys. I'm leaving it out just for you. If you are apart of shill team 6, you picked a fucked up time to bitch. Either way…Kys 16 posts and nearly all has been to try to derail me.

>GET OFF ME. A hiccup and you swoop in for blood, go neck yourself.

>just baked 2 breads

>one with correct format but wrong bread #

>the other one with incorrect format but correct bread #

>>9676

> i was trying to keep baker from switching out the dough and shills from pushing him to do it

No doc anons were just pointing to the title was incorrectly formatted at first. Then as a reaction to his replies there was criticism.

Title formatting for scrapper sites:

Q Research General #[XXXXX]: [Title] Edition

And especially with the current BO/BV problems with readiness to do edits, these problems will be there for a while.

>>9683

>>9682

Ah gyb accidently used a name on /qresearch/ too. But yea not really sure why you're getting the reaction you're getting.

Apparently the errors are the baker's "style".

Oh well, I made my point. Whenever this baker bakes just report his breads for the title change.

>I'll make this easy enough for you to be able to do and understand.

>This is the format:

>Q Research General #[XXXXX]: [Title] Edition

>You can legitimately just copy and paste the correct format from a previous bread for the new bread, then change the number and make your own title. Many bakers have this set up once the new bread is baked so it's ready for when you bake the new bread.

>If you're offended by that, that sounds like a you problem, but a fucked up bread title is a /qresearch/ problem.

>And if you can't understand that, wew.

>Again I don't know who you are. Maybe from scrapper sites because I seem to remember this digging in the past on other bakers. Let me tell you something.. I could not do the pre-bake tab shit because you were fucking with me. I will leave the mother fuckers out just because you are causing me issues. You get that? Do you? If IF you are a baker, your voice is not needed, quit trying to grab the wheel, it is HIGHLY DISRESPECTFUL.

I think he's actually fucking retarded. Almost comical at this point.

>>9691

>I could not do the pre-bake tab shit because you were fucking with me

He screwed up the first bake he did where no one was fucking with him, by the way.

>>9688

>>9692

I really don't even understand what he's getting at.

Requesting the baker to do something or notifying a baker of something isn't a "shill fucking with you", that's legitimately part of being a baker.

>>9696

I don't even think the baker understands what genuine anons AND bakers are trying to tell him.

If you tell him nicely, he attacks you. If you don't tell him nicely, he attacks you. Meh.

>>9701

>>9699

>Q Research General: #11141 And just like that.. quite Edition

>Q Research General: #11141

>>9714

Saw this linked in general.

OSS isn't the baker from last night.

Wasn't sure if that was the implication or not but just clarifying anyway.

>>9717

Just don't even engage those faggots. They're clearly coordinating to attack bakers. Doesn't matter which one it is, they'll find something to do.

>>9719

I think you misunderstood my post. I was clarifying you're NOT the baker from last night, and that baker here wasn't either I don't think.

>>9721

Yea what I think the baker meant (he could clarify once he gets here) was to come here and he posted the last post in this thread as the link, not that the post in that link was referring to you.

>>9725

What's really weird is they're using rainman talking points. Either they're just using his stupid shit to shill, or they're actually working with him.

>>9727

Rusty can say whether or not it's him, no idea.