>>11652478 (p/b)
Latecomer to this confirmation.
Question: have any anons investigated what or who are "dogs" using this email as context?
Who or what are the "dogs" referred to and how or why are they "loose"?
If "dogs" is used for comms, then would be valuable to understand EXACTLY what is mean by "dogs."
Apologies if this has already been done and I missed it.