>>3577520 pb
From previous bread.
Baker is a shill.
It wrote:
"Also, anyone who appeals to anons like this:
>Anons already know about this
Is being dishonest. The desired reaction being "of course I knew that already."
Doesn't know my motive for saving what I'm saying but accuses me of being a shill?
He who smelt it, dealt it."
In any case, "Q" itself wrote "Anons knew this" in regard to the fact POTUS was not going to fire RR. The board was arguing on this endlessly. But the real anons already knew it.
And "Q" said that. According to Baker that would make "Q" a shill?
So there is nothing wrong with saying "The anons already know this" if it is true.
If people go along, just because someone tells them "Everybody thinks it" that's not my fault. Everybody still has to do there own research . You'd think people would know that here without anyone telling them it.
So is that insulting to the Anons? Baker says if somebody tells them "All anons think it" that will make them accept it without question.
Baker is a liar.
That's why I still say the
Was Not Notable Baker.
Since it was about Sandy Hook, a slide for us here, Since "Q" research has nothing to do with Sandy Hook research at this point in time.
Anybody can go elsewhere or make their own specialized thread to study that.
This is not the place.
It's just causes, at best, a slide.
& At worst, a division strategy.
I don't give a crud for notables.
I don't work for Notables.
I work the material and the research and expect the best research to fail to make it to Notables.
Notables is meant for the Normies. It's supposed to be palatable. Something you can show your family.
It's often not the best research; Often the most watered down.
And even downright misleading and false - as the bit about the "Diaries of Lanza"
kek
Im sure.
I know there's cruddy bakers .
But I respect them for the work they do.
I don't track them and I don't care.
But this one should be kept an eye on.
BO