So sorry baker, wish I could, but am already up way too late kek. Just do the ghost if you gotta, maybe a Euro/Aus/NZanon will grab it. I think we've had a few newbs on that hemisphere come on as new bakers recently, and they've done well.
Don't worry about below, baker, I think it's a shill. (((They've))) been trying to create upset in notable land again, by pushing unsauced crap so that when we insist on requiring sauce they can pull this Alinsky tactic of "now you can only note stuff if it's sauced–you said so yourself, follow the rules goy!"
To clarify, any fact-based claims should be sauced. Fact-based claims state that specific events transpired, such as "these fires overlap these rail lines." Speculation does not need to be sauced, as it merely suggesting what may have occurred or might occur. Speculation/theory should still be grounded in commonly known fact (such as who is AG and when hearings will occur), but commonly known fact doesn't require proof/sauce.
>4011401
>'it is pure speculation' That disqualifies it. no offense anon but thems supposed to be the rules
No, speculation isn't disqualified. It should be of high quality and offer new insights, but it doesn't need to be excluded because it's not dealing in factual claims.