>>3909861

>anons and/or shills lost their minds over it

We weren't shills, we were anons trying to maintain standards of vetting factual assertions in our notables. The note was an intentionally misleading comparison of maps where one was out of scale to give the appearance of alignment between rail lines and the fires when none existed. Someone continued trying to pass it off over many breads the next day, but anons shut it down again.

I thought you admitted it was a mistake?

>>3909936

>I've been correcting these clowns for 3 days.

Thanks anon, keep up the good work. Our bakers mean well, but some are easily pulled into speculative slides. We need eyes on to help 'em out.

>>3909982

Kek, I feel you brother.

>>3910029

No prob anon–it's what anons do.

>>3909997

I don't get it. Baker admitted it was a mistake when removing notable, now acts like it was "shills losing their minds." Hard enough beating back shill disinfo w/o help on the inside kek.

>>3910041

>do a few people get to decide what is fact and what is fiction

ffs, FACTS decide what is fact. Maps are factual. A "noteworthy" connection based on miscaled maps isn't something you "disagree" about. Unless you want to argue 2+2 isn't 4.