Why? Can you connect the dots for us?
Baker
Curious why you didn't remove the "pedo" comment from notables. Maybe I misinterpreted your humor, but I thought you'd agreed with /s.
If it was an oversight, no prob, you can just get it nb. If you are choosing to leave the comment in, could you please explain how it is relevant to the post and how it doesn’t constitute an unproven accusation of a crime? Thanks.
>inb4 “u r shill protecting pedos”
Maintaining standards of truth and law in our movement is what will bring pedo fucks down. We want them actually arrested, not just bitched about on an image board. Q team and POTUS are working within the law, moving strategically, avoiding the legal traps which (((they))) would happily exploit. We should follow Q/POTUS’s lead.
All lb:
>>4492448, >>4492467, >>4492522, >>4492675
>(Pls) remove "pedo" comment from Sheila Jackson summary. We're no fans of pedo's, obvs, but pedophilia isn't referenced at all in the post. Referencing being against "pedo's" in general is one thing, but attributing it to a person can be construed as slander/defamation/libel. We are better off leaving out such gray-area allegations from notables
>No u.
>Kek. Thanks baker, appreciate you fixing those.
Ty for baking for us.
Not a Jew – about as far from defending them as a QRanon can get, kek. A hash history would prove that easy, but that's not the point.
The only thing that matters is the content of our arguments. I would appreciate an answer to mine based on its content, not my presumed identity or motives. Not trying to be an ass or harass bakers for the sake of harassing them. Legit trying to protect the board.
Thanks again, baker.
Ty anon. So glad I'm not the only one doing this.
>when MSM and Daily Beast/Sommer writes the inevitable articles about wild unsubstantiated theories posted here, you have something showing you posted a reasonable counter statement
Anons, we have to voice clear, reasoned disavowal when information or POV's are presented on this board which incriminate or malign us. All within reason, of course. Shills would love to get us all tangled in nonstop back-and-forth with them. That's not needed. If you see a couple anons have already addressed a discrediting shill narrative, then the job is done, no need to fill the bread with more preaching to the choir. But especially in notables if a vigorous counter-argument and request to remedy hasn't been made, plz step up to see it gets done. These ppl are stupid, but they're desperate, and are under advisement coordinated to throw wrenches in our works. We gotta stay sharp.
>4493180, >>4493197, >4493271
>This should be noted
>Why? Can you connect the dots for us?
>It means this is bigger than you can imagine.
I'll take that as a 'no'
Also anon, would appreciate if you could post links or caps of this for me:
>Previously, there was a baker that added "pedo" to some articles I posted.
Or even just the bread # or general day/time info. Here or in Meta or /comms/ –whichever you prefer.
Thanks and Godspeed