ck email in 5.
for context since u replied.
>Shill Baker G reporting…
KEK
All bakers are called shills, especially if they bake a lot.
That said, when baking, you represent all anons, not just yourself.
If your views diverge too much from those of most anons, and your notables reflect this, they will object.
NO OUTSIDE COMMS.
That's a VERY clear statement.
Biggest reason imo to remain skeptical of claims made to the contrary.
More reasons:
-
we need actual proof - so far, . just claims.
-
why wouldn't Q inform us? Two ways (2 boards). Nobody has trip except Q.
-
Most anons don't have access to TS.
-
Those wo/Apple won't have access for even longer.
-
Argument about poor security at 8: chans are chans, always kind of wild, but that's one reason Q came here - wild and free.
-
Q has never objected to conditions on chans, just adapted.
-
Chans are where the autists are, not TS (will prolly remain true even w/access - many don't want a "sign in" experience).
-
the idea that because TS is a "platform" it is the same platform as QR is hard to defend.
-
always better to be conservative - wait and see - than jump to conclusions too early.
Your views are your own.
But when baking, wise to avoid taking a position that squarely differs from what most anons think. Especially over an issue that will eventually be resolved, one way or another.
>>15827882
>>15827944
>>15827964
>>15828039
this belongs in General, not here. Sorry.
Tx for the documentation.
Understand the bottom line -
objection to baker going against a basic premise of this board (no outside comms).
Baker is this poster -
Not OSS.
I do not agree with his conclusions but they are his.
Baker role is not about personal opinions. Outlook does influence notables but shouldn't do so to the point where there are wholesale objections - that just doesn't work, see
Even if baker is right (NOT saying he is), the TIMING is wrong. Truth always reveals itself in time, we don't have to push the river.
Won't get anywhere arguing.
Anons not supporting you on this.
Stealing is not encouraged - but if it's anons (not shills), means they think baker is a shill.
''[just saw BV says there were several bakes, including one by OSS - taking advantage of chaos. Generally, BVs support signed in baker (preserving the chain of custody). If there's a problem, needs to be discussed.]
BV will stick with signed in baker, not allow an OSS steal. This is not an endorsement of a course that puts you squarely in opposition to anons with a solid argument to back their position: NO OUTSIDE COMMS.
Thoughts?
please refresh
META was just attacked again
same approach as b4 - separate IPs w/accusations, other bs
NOW CLEAN.
Open for business.