>>2251030

Thanks Baker, great analysis!!

>>2250801

Morning DayBaker. I am glad to see this in particular:

1. Q's absence on the boards suggests finer operations are at work that may be undermined/reacted upon by Q's presence on the board. Q has hinted before that actions/postings here produce cabalist reactions. Should that be the case, it would be in everyone's best interests to minimize enemy reactionism that might disrupt or distract from a more delicate plan or important happening.

I named a bread this:

Q Research General #2796 Q Can't Give Us Crumbs Now Without Alerting (((Them))) Edition

and somebody {eyeroll}'d my bread title in a subsequent thread… I was just trying to convey what I quoted from you above.