>>4317362 lb

>1. These statements aren't sourced

1. They're not connected via explanation as to how they disprove specific claims in the original notable, or demonstrate a pattern of journalistic malfeasance in the original source you're rebutting. Since you haven't offered an actual rebuttal we can include in notables, I will not recommend it to baker.

Thank you for making my point. They are from the same source as the notable I am questioning. That quote is from the FB page and article of the same source you used.

>>4317362 lb

The source of the article is crap. I stopped right there. I’m not going to go through disproving an article from a left wing propaganda arm of the Israeli DS. That website doesn’t even try to hide it.

And as you said, notables are not endorsements. So your delay tactics and then handing off really don’t matter. It can stay as far as I’m concerned, I made my point and I never asked for it to be removed. I merely pointed out subversion. Not the 1st time, not this bread, Baker that it’s happened. I very rarely call out a notable and had no intention of calling this one out, until I did not recognize the source and did a quick search. Then I dug a little deeper into their FB posts. You got it into the notables, your good. I’m just glad they aren’t endorsements.

>>4317767

Baker, none of my comments were directed at you. Myself and the last Baker had been debating a notable for multiple breads. Thank you for baking.

>>4317813

Very good point anon. And especially going to the extent of clearing the entire floor.

>>4318144

Doesn’t the clock have its own thread?