>>3641603

re_read crumbs

>>3641691

I made no argument, no intent or attempt to slide. Crumbs, no matter how "old", are no slide, IMHO, all crumbs are 100% relevant day in & day out. Nothing wrong with review. Simply stated "re_read crumbs". And now adding see: >>3641659, as it's the best explanation I've seen.

>>3641443

(((+)))

(((WWG1WGA)))

For the record, not everything which is NOT the main topic of the bread is a slide. The bread can handle more than one topic at once. Expand your thinking.