>>13156776 (PB)

We shouldn't be. This isn't difficult for people that know what they're doing. It's not a hard task to hire

competent admins that are capable of protecting against this moronic intervention that is

CLEARLY designed to scare anons away.

Unless Jim is really complicit… Seems ridiculous, but why else would he let the board he

was literally called before Congress to testify about fall to shit like this?

Why?

>>13157104

Correct, but Jim blew it. There's no excuse for this level of incompetence.

>>13157185

Not at this level, no. Nobody does. There's no reason to. This is a moronic question. I hope you're

being sarcastic. For your own sake.