>>3877216

>>3877216

I'm the one that was begging for a reprieve on the train line piece. I screen shotted everything, though, and will try to further sauce it later.

I just wanted to say I understand why you dropped it. But your instincts were good–this from a researcher and teacher of research design.

It's valuable info, I've been working on this dig for five days and I jumped at the chance to see that map, because this is how Cali could exercise eminent domain–burn out the land to make it dirt cheap and then put the rail lines there.

I don't know if that was done but I really value that lead. Glad it was there, for at least a little while!

Re: post on correlation between potential Cali rail lines and Cali fires

Anons proposed–and got–a deletion of a post I considered of value

I asked why one of the anons who wanted the post deleted felt so strongly about it. Here is his reply and what I would say back.

>>3877014 (You) pb

I've already made this argument in all my posts on this subject. It's about bakers being responsive to anons when they point out factual errors so we can maintain journalistic standards. We've been under heavy attack, and bakers have been bitched at heavily over notables. This can cause bakers to naturally callous up to legit anon feedback. It's important they don't do that, or our morale and cohesion will suffer. It is this larger issue that's important, more than the particular news on Cali.

>>3877219bpb

I appreciate you getting back to me.

I understand what you're saying about bakers taking feedback from anons. I have made the same point myself. It's not easy, so I respect your point.

I actually fought to keep this post on the rail lines, not because it has as much sauce as it could, but because it's of value to me as a digger. I jumped at the chance to check it out, because of the controversy about eminent domain and the fuckery of the state in trying to impinge on the property rights of people in order to clear the land. I had not seen this map before and find it quite interesting.

One of the things I do on this board is, when I find something that is good but could use some extra sauce, I seek out the sauce and "supplement" the original post when possible. That way, potentially good info can be saved.

Sometimes, when I do this, I find the story goes nowhere and dis-recommended for notables, if so.

>>3877651

Thanks, good stuff.

I wonder whether they had the ash analyzed.

That would be useful to know.

From the description, this "ash" sounds unlike regular fire ash. Pollen-like?? Not what we'd expect. Luna thought it different than ash–more dust like.

I'll take down the info and try to find out more. (Unless you're in the mood?)

My main limitation is no sleep, eventually turns the digger into a zombie digger.

>>3877674

Does it sound like the same thing?

And if so, do you know more about it?

>>3877679

Normal woman, beautiful bod

>>3877827

Like the DS, maybe?

One of the frustrating things about the whole Cali situation, including the fires, is that when you dig on it, you get a really creepy feeling that something is horribly wrong but it's hard to find solid evidence. (Just like 911.)

There are reports, eg, of electrical disturbances right before some of these fires start–DEW??

But I'm pretty sure that this is something you'll only hear about in the initial reports. After that, it will disappear.

>>3877882

I get it about earned loyalty, but this isn't the best place to rely on in terms of taking everything literally (espec. about timing) because of the necessity of disinformation.

Anyone who looks for confirmation here won't find it–not in the interim–because all info will be contain seeds of disinfo.

Also, plans change.

Good luck, anon, as someone else pointed out, we're just under a lot of pressure here, everyone is. It's an opportunity to grow but it's hard, everyone feels it.