>>4317668 lb
> So your delay tactics and then handing off really don’t matter
>You got it into the notables, your good.
Since my professionalism and motives have been called into question, I will respond to these accusations.
I wasn't delaying, and had no motive to "get it into notables," it was nominated. Since you appeared to be engaging me in good faith to resolve an issue, I engaged back. This isn't delay, and I didn't handoff to avoid you. I baked about as long a shift as any baker does when baking a long shift, staying longer than I usually do in fact. To accuse me of bad faith without any evidence or support from other anons does not bolster your argument.
Understand me – I don't want misinformation or shill slides to be noted, and we bakers do sometimes make errors there. So I wanted to give this inquiry the kind of attention I can't give while baking. I compiled all links here so anons that have the time and inclination can investigate and present a case to correct any error should they discover one.
In bread #5497, the https://mondoweiss.net post was nominated by one anon, commented on in the affirmative by another, so baker vetted to see it was sauced, and included it in notables in the last bun before baking
No anons voiced concern at that time, but it was a late add.
>>4313900, >>4313959, >>4314353, >>4314430
Next bread, #5498, you posted this concern which I didn't see. Here is that post and the 2 anons that replied to you:
>>4314667, >>4314699 ,>>4314714
None of these posts called attention to baker asking that an error in notables be corrected, or nominating your post for current bread
Next bread, #5499, you voiced concern I'd ignored previous, and an anon replied indicating you were a shill kvetching about Israel being included in notes. Again, no one nominated anything for notables or asked for a notable to be removed. I asked for more info on your concern
4315437>>4315458 >>4315769
Next bread, #5500 (PBU5:5x100), an anon comments on the post in a way that doesn't indicate concern about it being included in notables, or nominating any rebuttal to it
You post with further detail about your concern, I reply I'd look into it but on first look, it appeared worthy of an additional note. Then I saw your rebuttal consisted of "muh antisemitism" and posted a brief explanation why that wasn't a valid argument with a cap saucing that your source claimed anti-semitism as its chief argument. Again, no anons either joined in the argument to explain where I was wrong & request the disputed post be removed from notes, or nominated your rebuttal to be included in notes.
>>4316061, >>4316306, >>4316359
Next bread, #5501, you added another post voicing concern. A 1-post anon says "stop dividing" but without any context, we don't know whether shill or anon. Again, no calling attention to baker asking for removal or addition to notables. We then had a more detailed exchange in which I did try to understand where you were coming from, but couldn't. Again, no other anons expressed interest or concern.
>>4316839, >>4316942, >>4317013, >>4317362, >>4317030
Next bread, #5502, you call me out for a process error (not knowing which of your statements were sourced to which link) as though that proved an argument, but still failed to provide the explanation I asked for. I said so, and you accused me of acting in bad faith, shilling for the article, and running from you at the handoff after having engaged with you for hours.
After being afk a bit, I came back and dug more into the website of the original notable.
https://mondoweiss.net/2018/12/editorial-misdeeds-laughable/
I notice they are pro Palestine and describe "anti-semitism" as something someone can be "labeled" with when they are pro-Palestine (pic). I wonder whether that particular political orientation is your problem with this website.
Not pro-Israel enough for you?
Or is baker "comped," intentionally shilling disinfo and not responding to anon feedback?
All the post history on this issue is available here for anons to make an informed call.