>>2445714

Yes and that was annoying AF (the whole slide). This is a more credible sauce. You could have accepted that a slightly dubious twat isn't great sauce (though I've seen worse) and used that time to track this one down.

Your info was interesting, yes, and it certainly got 'noted' kek, but learn to read the room. You didn't have any support not because you were wrong, but because you either weren't convincing enough or not diplomatic enough.

In this case finding this sauce would have been convincing.

Then we would have been able to debate whether it was actually notable, not whether it was credible.

Also, it says this happenedv Jul 25? Why so long for that to come out?

>>2445840

No need to apologize as far as I'm concerned.

The incessant shills, deliberate sliders and dividers, the cp and gore posters never will.

Nah, just offering some hopefully constructive criticism where I can, and just the way I saw it go down.

>>2445984

That's good!

Something like : "I believe Q is who they represent themselves to be, but we'll only know for sure from the lips of the president. You should ask him. "

>>2446045

Hey ebot, if you divide three mcchickens between four people, but you first eat three of the mcchickens, how many mcchickens does each person get?

>>2446063

Probably right. They'll just cut out "I believe Q" kek

>>2446107

KEK, emtmi

>>2446104

Meant for me anon?

>>2445910

I still find it interesting that it happened 9 or 10 days ago and it's not as notable (MSM styles) as chelyabinsk. I guess not as many dash cams caught it kek

But it must have been a pretty notable explosion to anyone nearby.

>>2446144

kekekekek

>>2446152

Thanks anon. I would have skipped over that stuff as soon as I saw the namefagging.

>>2446172

Hopefully still trying to work out my question kek (don't think so, it's not that sophisticated)