>>2688763 (pb)
>The irony is that this is the same issue that Gamergate was: ethics in journalism. Until we can have a press free from the interference of intelligence agencies, we don't have a free press.
I agree. Worth repeating :)
Here, faggots. I posted this in a previous bread and here it is again for the newfags. Shills will not follow this; they know it will weed out their shit ;)
Here is a simple if/then set of questions that make discernment of notable posts easier:
Is the post relevant to MAGA/KAG/WW?
Is the post relevant to a Q drop?
If no, not notable; if yes, then:
Does the post quote from a source?
If no, not notable; if yes, then:
''Is the source of the source bullshit, or is it a legitimate validatable source?''
If bullshit, then not notable; If legitimate, then ''DINGDINGDING'' you have a notable post. The most important part of this process is checking that the source quoted by any article or report is actually valid.
Those that lurk more, will be edified.
Good bakers tend to roll exactly as I've posted, and shills tend to push shit with no valid source ;)
>Even so dear,
sup. how's the therapy going? Your literary style is unique ;)
Anyway…
> post are complete with sause are being past over, and others are looking for some kind of gratification for themselves by posting other people's reseach
we're all anon. As long as it's fact based evidence with sauce, who give a shit?
> I've had this happen two times with my research here on this board, my only concern is if they're willing to do that what other mischief would they do?
Other than concernfagging and being moldy, do you want a fucking medal or something?