>>4540630, >>4540636, >>4540653
>So… the video that got a dozen responses and KEKS didn't make notables eh?
Why criticize notables without offering as much info as possible to remedy the situation? Why not include the link to the video you're referencing? Baker may just have missed it. Or baker may not have understood its significance. Why not include an explanation for how a post is valuable to Q Research?.
It's a popular shill tactic to just whine and degrade w/o offering anything constructive. The way to avoid being seen as a shill is to offer constructive content: either novel research, or info that helps baker compile it.
Ty!