tyb.
Not feelin' baker-y but greeter-ly.
hope it's goin' well this am.
o7
>Let's say it was a Q strike
Let's not.
Let's stick to the evidence and not get ahead of the facts.
Contemplate as you will - but Q movement is not about violence and neither is this board.
>I can't trust anybody
That is a problem.
You got in trouble the other night because you picked up a bread, added no notables (despite at least one nom), did four notes the next bread (not counting yours) and then didn't respond to anon feedback.
Got anons pissed with you as a result. That's why they wouldn't support you.
Trust anons, trust the board and cultivate good comms. Turn things around. You can do this.
o7
u ok anon?
>>10188557 Anon debunks Vice's latest Q hit piece
notable analysis
ck out bakers meta, details are there. not personal, there to counter shill narrative of kitch split. your comments welcome.
need to go back farther, to #12992, #12993.
>Oof they’re turning on eachother now?
NO, anon. Nobody is turning on anybody. We support one another here - and document things for the sake of transparency. And learning. Anons do not seek to cause division - only shills.
You picked up the bake in 92 to bake 93 - to relieve me. and i truly appreciated it. Everybody is not against you.
Plz just look: >>>/comms/21790
There is something for you there.
Graham: ….full of garbage. Does that bother you?
>Anons Know.
So does she.
Bad memory? Not likely. She's not a good liar.
Thanks a lot Sen. Leahy. That's very constructive.
KEKS GALORE.
>what is the issue they have past that?
see anons' comments in 93 and comments in dough in 94. Don't wish to list them here, you are capable of finding and re-reading.