Do you accept notable notables or just bloatables?
> literal shit for breakfast?
You talking about the hundreds of posts labeled notables per bread?
If so, then yes.
As an old skool notetaker, I think anon's highest number of notables was 15.
>Maybe it's not a Chinese spy balloon but part of the OP to expose Biden/dems as China sympathizers.
Shhhhh. Spouting such nonsense could get you banned around these parts.
Following the fucking narrative you feckless felcher.
>From here on out we will never be able to tell what is real and what is fake.
Where you been that last 2000 years?
If everything is notable then nothing is notable.
Anons don't want a daily run down of crap news.
Don't get me wrong, baker, anon appreciates the hard work that bakers put in, just not a fan seeing a whole ton of crap labeled as notable that has become the norm over the past few years. Not a personal attack, merely a rant. Anon remembers what notables used to be like when bakers would actually apologise if an anon pointed out that something had already been notabled, whereas now it is the norm to see the same shit notabled bread after bread.
>Only been on this planet for 57
We have been lied to and manipulated since time immemorial. Having difficulty discerning truth from BS is nothing new. Just that.
> Normies on board don't always read old breds or see notables in real time or research
You suggesting we've devolved to the point of lowest common denominator? Sad, truly fucking sad.
>We were always meant to become teachers and to disseminate information.
Sure, anon will not argue this point, but from our very own research platform? That point anon will argue. Normies congregate in far, far greater profusion on social media sites where anons should be doing this.
Anon didn't create this meme for the shits and giggles.
>Things evolved, so adapt; we are the news now.
Got it. So, we are no longer Q research, but have (d)evolved into alt-right news dissementators.
Ironically, anon got pulled by OSS of all people for not bloating bloatables and calling on anons to nominate as it once was.
>what's the down side?
Akshually, reader fatigue.
If anons have become accustomed to bloatables, with repeat after repeat after repeat and click bait news headlines with no meat, actual notable shit becomes buried in the clutter.
> That's like 5-10 minutes of my time.
Contrast that with 50 bloatables being 2 minutes of my time.