TY BAKER!!
>>4251131 lb
>you disagree even after Q confirmed it as a Q post…??
Don't disagree it's a proof now that Q confirmed it, was just saying that the "baker vindicated vs. shills" narrative is not notable. It wasn't shills that disagreed the possible proof was notable the first time, it was legit anons. We have to be careful not to call everyone who voices a differing opinion "shills." Shills push specific content agendas – either wanting obscure, non-factual/unsauced slides included, or fake news MSM included, or specific (((subject matter))) excluded. Moreover, you can almost track ID's to see the usual copypasta fare that outs them as shills. But Anons who are conservative about whether we leap to conclusions or spit-ball too loosely are just autists being autists. Sometimes a leap ends up being right, but it's a known phenomenon of so-called "psychics" or "prophets" that if you spit-ball tons of predictions, you'll hit eventually. The 1-strike-takes-all doesn't prove predictive discernment. It's the ratio of strikes to misses. Not trying to be a wet blanket, just trying to keep our feet on the ground. As far as the face of the movement we present to the public goes, we want our strikes-to-misses ratio to be as scientific as possible, mathematically sound. Q's giving us material to make it so, as long as we don't get ahead of ourselves.
>which baker are you?
BO/BV are always lurking and monitoring, anon. If a known shill attempts to bake, they will come on and say so. If a baker with an unknown IP hash or no recent bake history visible to BO/BV attempts to bake, they'll announce "no bake history" or something like that, even if they claim to be a regular baker. Sometimes a baker in that instance can post other corroborating info for BO/BV, but if not, or if baker's new, BO/BV will stay close by to monitor.