>>17980227 pb
>RRN: Nancy Pelosi Tribunal Pt 1 & 2
>anons asked you to take this out
>Why aren't you listening?
because baker is doing his/her JOB
>There have been multiple digs about this source
WHAT diggs? reading the disclaimer on the RRN site? that what (You) call a digg?
>by consensus, not considered credible.
fuck (((your))) consensus. by "consensus" global warming is REAL, asshat.
>Get out of the kitchen.
(You)GTFOH with your hall monitor bullshit
>you are relieved.
by WHOSE authority?
>Unless some anons can present a great argument as to why RRN should be a valid source of info, it is no longer considered an acceptable source for any story (even as "satire").
i repeat, YOU are not in charge here. if you want to leave them out when YOU are baking, so be it. otherwise STFU.
>If anons DO have reason for including it, please present them. Not trying to throw out anything that is not valid - just separate the wheat from the tares.
RE-READ the parable of the wheat and the tares. repeat until the MEANING sinks in.