>>11179075
>You were going to drop me like a dime,
>now you love me full homo?
Did your IP change? Single post.
Anyone in this for the real fight, for a bright / honest future without the corruption and lies, then you're on my side. Pretty simple.
>Do you take any medications?
None. Maybe should have at some point, but that window is past. Have had 1 beer today, but there's that, but pretty level headed.
>>11179075
>But seriously, for me it is all about leaving the kitchen open. We have a closed loop MSM, and clearly elements have and will continue to try and turn QR into that same thing.
100% fully support that. As well as mechanisms to maintain baker anonymity. Without being all "verified" and shit.
>>11179075
>Baker's don't edit other baker's notables. I never did this unless it was correcting an obvious mistake.
>This is a huge no no. If you bake the bread, spend the time to do the notables old school like some of us (no note takers).
>Then it should stand as is, whether someone else agree with it or not.
Also 100% on that, unless it was clearly some shill baker that grabbed the bred.
But even then, the approach I've suggested is for Anons to, within the bred, call it out as being run by a Shill Baker, where other anons Nom and Second it. So there are at least 3. Harder to do inorganically.
The statement would be a notable that says "This is a bred baked by a shill/blahblah/commie/cia/whatever baker"
If the baker doesn't put it in the Notes, and it's been Nom'd and Seconded, then to hell with that baker, it's not an "AnonBaker".
I could go on, but this is turning into a wall of text.