>>1628286
So no vigilance, because it is too hard?
Patriots fight, or not?
Very hard to vet?
Have we ever tried ?
If no vigilance--will clowns exploit the lack?
I don't understand. Why would a shill want to vet bakers?
For a number of reasons– all related to preventing mission success.
-
Why would a shill want to vet bakers?
-
If we have no vetting, will clowns exploit the lack?
These are valid questions.
What does that have to do with anything?
The "pizzagate fiasco" is a paradigm example of a real scandal diminished and covered up by corrupt media– you're citing it as if you accept the mainstream cover-up talking points. But if that were the case, you wouldn't be here.
The muddiness of the waters is extreme.
Focus guys– why is there such weirdness surrounding the idea of vetting bakers?
One anon claims that "shills" went to vet bakers, but that would seem to be nonsense, since vetting, by definition, is a method of preventing shilling.
Let's discuss this question in a rational way please.
How do you feel about the baker vetting question?
I assume bakers understand the gravity of this whole situation, and would be glad to do what it takes to show, at the very least, they aren't clown-based?
No, I'm saying if there is no vetting, then clowns will exploit the lack, whether now, or later. Basic vigilance– do you disagree?
I can't understand why there would be resistance to this from anons. These are very basic measures we're talking.
This isn't about your performance– I'm talking about basic, standard vetting measures in general. Would you object to those in principle?
You seem to be saying that all bakers are white hats by default (how?) Does that mean you think we shouldn't vet at all? I don't understand. Maybe I read you wrong.
Does BO vet bakers? Is that process transparent?
Was BO vetted?
Just vigilance guys, let's work together and develop some realistic guidelines.