>109>0124 (prev bread)

Your definition of the problem is accurate.

I used to think just like that. Even posted in agreement a few breads back.

Then I remembered the reason why your solution is untenable:

>>1090465 (prev bread)

If you want to fight , then respond INDIRECTLY. (You seem to be very articulate in your writing so this shouldn't be too hard.)

No (you) like I did for this post. (suggested by a different anon)

This way autists will filter ID+ and normies will see the false narrative. Every one is happy.

Until BO or Q state otherwise , the status quo remains in effect.

BTW: Just in case you're just a shill, no (you) for U.

>>1091065

Good Call , the sauce is tasty.

Also , the REASON for Scalia [187] is irrelevant to alleged agreement reached during #TarmacMeeting bc Scalia happened months before.

Gorsich = pro-life.

Q: (reference to RBG)

>“Here to stay.”

>No, you’re not.

Case is already settled.

>>1091013

>>1091087

[1]Make your case.

[2]Include shill ID: in your post. This works for posts within the current bread.

If it's a prev bread then put ID of shill from the bread where it posted.

ID: changes for every anon each time a new bread is baked. ID: not related to IP of anon.

[3]Put extra '>'

inside the post No. to eliminate the (you).

>>1091501

>>1091501

>Ray Chandler operation may have paid off.

Of course it did. That's when the #ExtremeShilling began to really take off.

Been getting worse, more sophisticated.

What happens when you put a hurdle in front of an autist?

What happens if the autist is woke as fuck?