TY Patriot Anon Baker o7
>>14113119
Nope.
Your compd shill bread is cancer.
astute
>The Dough Always Knows
The shills there are not happy when Anons choose Patriot bread instead.
>>14113165
To a shill like you I guess so.
To Anons this Baker is Based.
This Anon always says NOPE to rodent and tranime breads.
Yep.
The other bread shills are so desperate they're even making Fake Swordy posts to try to con Anons.
Yes, it would appear the other bread is an artificially inflated F&G one.
Discernment seems to indicate it as such.
There's 2 IDs in the other bread with very high posts counts.
That is done to make it appear it is just as 'popular' as this bread by inflating the number of posts artificially.
This bread has the proper Dough and moar organic posts in it.
>Scavino doesnt have a teleshill acct
Aw, man.
Not Telegram fuckery again.
So, are Gen Flynn & Lin Wood the only legit self-admitted 'namefags' on there at this point?
Do you know of any others?
I saw a Fake Swordy post there - check the post count on it - very high not like the real Swordy.
See:
I think at this point it needs to be digg once and for all.
Bakes, how about changing the Notable Description to say:
Need Sauce On Legit Telegram Accounts
TY o7
Hopefully, this can be settled once and for all as it's getting tiresome very tiresome.
FYI - from the other bread.
So, any questions remaining about whether or not this is the legit Anon Baked bread?
Buh-Bye, GerBil.
You suck again!
>>14113908
>BV is being REALLY tame right now. He knows why. Do anons?
Spit it out then.
Otherwise you're just beclowning yourself with Empty Threats #2367832657863.
The most insulting part of all?
They think Anons are stupid and will easily fall for their bullshit.
Yeah.
But, amazingly and never thought even possible, Fungus prolly has a higher Anon Approval Rating than Doge does at this point.
>Yall deleted the bread that had anon's post which took me over an HOUR to gather the multiple sauce.
And after you posted the sauce it magically self-destructed leaving you incapable of posting it ever again.
Who do you think you're fooling, shill?
>There is no such thing as consensus on QR.
Depends on the context.
Is there consensus here that Q is tight with Trump and there are multiple proofs that prove it?
In other words, it is easy af to replicate any diggs/sauce that one posts.
So, much ado about nothing then.