>>4869591

Baker

Disagree this is notable.

It wasn't nominated or responded to by any other anons, lb or this bread.

Can someone explain how this equates to coded comms? What is the message? Is there any other corroborating evidence elsewhere to support the argument?

If not, things like this in notables make us look kooky imo

>>4869213 "New evidence claims sheep are unable to recognize their own handlers" [Cabal Comms?]

>>4869650

>why do we care what that potato head says

Bc Q & POTUS pay attn to what our enemies say? But this one has already been in notables.

>>4869729

Baker

Re this:

>>4869213 "New evidence claims sheep are unable to recognize their own handlers" [Cabal Comms?]

Did you see this earlier?

>>4869659

No one else nominated or wanted it in.

It's a little nutty.

>>4869729, >>4869757

and agree to remove this one too.

this rando 23 nonsense doesn't belong in notables

>>4869192 POTUS Schedule Wednesday, January 23 2019

>>4869777

Thank you for removing baker.

>anon who posted it said "think this may be notable"

Was probably OP from lb, where was self-nom'd also.

>baker has discretion to include posts in notables even if there are no nominations

Understood. Also good to take anon feedback. Point was no other anon nominated, and one anon disagreed with sound reasoning.