>>18972023

TY Baker.

>>18971994 pb

>>18972027 pb

re RRN:

Already went thru this months ago

Many dug on RRN repeatedly, including me.

RRN is not only NOT satire (sounds like straight news), its creator stated it was designed to make gullible conservatives look like idiots (or words to that effect).

If "anons want it," what kind of anons are they? All it takes is a handful of posts - one shill with several computers - to develop a false consensus.

If anyone has a new argument or info, please share it. If not,

The rule STANDS - NO RRN in QR Notables.

>>18972419

>>18972437

Free speech is fine, not the same as NOTABLE speech.

This >>>>>18972441

>>18972445

Not a good argument.

If I'm not mistaken, you're the chief poster promoting RRN, always have been. Re "what anons think," hate to say, but when BO has posted an opinion as anon during your bakes, baker did not respond.

>>18972472

Over your head, anon.

a - Jim is site owner, not board owner

b - Site owner only regulates illegal content

Any questions?