Backup baker here, can bake
BO can you czech me?
Last bakes: 3198-3200
Before you go, tho. If you have an interest in my final post responding to the issues raised lb, I have it prepared. Will post shortly.
>>2550765 lb
>this will be my 3rd and last
bc of below examples of other anons countering the "go away" anons, and since it's correct I made claims w/o including sauce, pics will show:
1) yes, my goncern re: FMbaker has been raised b4 and BO said my argument was valid, and EVERYONE on that thread BTFO'd this bitch while not saying a thing in condemnation of me
2) BO agreed w/ me and anons that femfagging is cancer
3) During bread 3035 (and b4/after) FMbaker admitted to being the femfagging, famewhoring baker of 3009. (I can provide moar caps later, but no time to dig up now if needing to bake, and it’s better for anons to review the whole breads tbh).
The specific post she admitted to making had a bright yellow bkgd and is included
3) There appears to be similar bkgd color on today's cap of Q post. Here:
>>2541362 lb
>>2541362 lb
>>2541362 lb
>>2541362 lb
>>2541362 lb
Not proof, just evidence which is simple/visual enough to make a final point for tonight. As I said, careful evidence gathering takes time. Composing argument/reading anons feedbax also takes time. (Also baking all night) Can't do it all at once.
4) Q mentioned INFILTRATION causing internal disruption. That doesn't mean FEtards, that means ppl positioning themselves IN POSITIONS OF INFLUENCE among our ranks. R-larp BV was already outed/removed as one of the infiltrators. And who did she un-ban and support? FMbaker
Thanks for the support anons. We just want our base comfy:
>>2550732 lb
>I SUPPORT BAKERS SOLVING BAKING SHIT
>>2551095 (kek,THIS was a cap I failed to grab, so thanks)
Yes. Drama for drama's sake is bad. But so is contentment for contentment's sake. It's called CUCKING and it's what got us in this mess in the first place: "dont' worry goy, everything's fine, nothing to upset yourselves over, you don't wanna be the whistle blower/squeaky wheel that rocks the boat do ya?"
>>2550820 lb
>opinions
>bitching
>which kills nice board vibes
NOT opinions when sauced, and NOT "bitching" when offering specific complaints (subversive baker based on specific behaviors) with specific remedy (evidence-based call for denial of baking privileges). When presented that way it's called Law and Order. This is very different from the EMOTIONAL arguments you and your marxist C_A nigger friends levy, like "drama" and "asshole." And FUCK your "nice board vibes." This isn't fucking normie day care, it's a WAR ROOM of serious defenders of freedom and truth. Also, to whoever complained about my "writing a novel." Good arguments take reason, which takes WORDS, and I have to put LOTS of them together in one post if I'm to keep my promise of not sliding with back-and-forth bread-eating arguments. I try to be as concise as I can. Am truly sorry for the drama, wouldn’t do it if I didn’t believe, with good cause, that it’s in service of preventing even moar. TY
>am on the bench with you
TY, am only doing what I think is best for you guys based on what I see you advocating for/reee'ing against. If you all think you're better off w/o me, and I see that clearly communicated by moar than a few noise-makers, I'll leave gracefully
>No harm done if she keeps posting quality notables
That's an argument for another time (if she comes back). You guys need to look at this issue closely tho. C_Aniggers know notables are the eyes-on part of our operation, they try to subvert them every chance they get.
>Only here to say that some of your sauce is burnt.
Apologies, I did not intend to mislead w/bad sauce. I don't have access to hash info, so it takes me longer to figure out post-source/IDEN.
I did say earlier this particular piece of "evidence" was just something that caught my eye, among other proofs, one of which putting meditation instructions in notes, but that I hadn't had a chance to go in to confirm since I was needed to bake. In good faith, I have to put the priority in baking as long as the board relies on me to do it during my usual time.
Notes So Far
>>#3219
>>2551308, >>2551168 BO Weighs in on Q's password list release, re: @Prosobiec bs
>>2551228, >>2551456 More transcripts/vid of hijack. See #3217 notes for more
>>2551175 List of Recent Resignations/Retirements
Anons, do you want this in notes?
On the one hand is pretty loose speculation, on the other hand, also has lots of names/info/review.
TY
Thanks for clarifying
>I'm gonna get shit for this post.
Glad you didn't.
>>2551619, >>2551620, >>2551628, >>2551630, >>2551624, >>2551645, >>2551685
Thanks for looking out guys.
Not for me, for each other.
>2551697
If #tunnelvision means you can work through the noise, that's a good kinda vision kek.
Kek you mean this??? (pic related)
Did I miss a slide on this earlier?
How 'bout
All Good and Uncucked Edition
>you can thank me by taking the second set of red text out of the top
The top of where, the dough? Do you mean this?
>"/Qresearch/ does not condone violence or the incitement of violent acts against any groups and/or individuals."
Is this a call to remove it entirely, or just change font to normal or bold?
Gotcha, kek. TY for the feedbax
Anons, can we get second/third on this issue
of removing "we no violence" from top of OP?
BO, plz share opinion if haz
If group response is inconclusive I'll split the difference and un-drama the font at least
>was done in response/to pre-empt the Mocking-birds.
I know, but sometimes the "you protest too much" argument is as bad as ignoring the bait. I agree w/call to remove, but am only one anon among many. I like your idea even better:
Replace it with our language, not theirs. How about:
We support attacking terrible ideas with better ones. We believe the use of force only proves a bad argument. We are researchers who deal in open-source information and informed arguments. We neither need nor condone the use of force in our work here.
baking
shit–where did the time go?