WTF is this DOUG / Neon crap Anon sees in the NOTABLES?

Neon is a TRAITOR and PAYtriot.

We've been over this many, many times.

Neons first back- stabbing came during the 666 Fifth Ave breads where they attempted to direct and force research to a desired end in an effort to obtain a salacious story and then run the results thru their site and monetize it.

Anons ok with being used in thos manner?

Allowing Q to be used, mis-directed and quoted of supporting bad research and lies from nothing? That is what happened.

Those incidents occurred almost 2 years ago and for most of the time since, Bakers have kept neon from our Notables. But now we have neon again in our notes and dialog and AGAIN neon is using this spotlight to boost his name and site and allow him moar views / viewership and moar money to be made off of our research and efforts.

Anons ok with that?

Neon is NOT our fren. Not in any way, shape or form. Neon is just as bad as Doug and MAGA coalition. Perhaps Doug is part of the coalition?

PLEASE IGNORE AND LEAVE NEON OUT OF 8 CHAN

Neon has no allegiance to us nor is he interested in our success- only neon success.

BE CAREFUL WHO YOU FOLLOW

Neon will take this site down if Anons allow it to continue.

>>6045746

CORRECT! Neon is BAD NEWS.

NOTHING Anons want or need to be associated with!

If Anons want to lump themselves in with CNN who mixes up their reporting with TRAITORS from places like Quatar, then neon's the way to go. He's NOT our fren- never has been, never will be.

Choose wisely, Anons. Our reputation depends on it!

>>6045771

> ridiculous notables.

Couldn't believe what I saw this am with a news story (?) about he said, she said then they did this and I said that.

We are the news and this is news?

Get the fuk oiutta here with that shit!

THAT is NOT news! That's schoolyard trash talk.

EMBARRASSING!

Baker should know better and if not, we are not the news but a peddler of innuendo and rumor of the mud-slinging type.

SHAMEFUL

>>6045807

FuQ neon. Guarding your presence here now? So desperate to have your bullshit rhetoric pass the smell test you defend it by slapping Anons around?

Nothing new for you, ya pos. GFYS

>>6045817

Yeah- take us down when we report this kind of bullshit. Ya think new eyes will be kind? Think tey will view Anons as legit by this child-like squabbling?

No! This crap is what tabloids are made of. NOT anything about being REAL NEWS.

If Anons desire to be taken seriously, this bullshit won't cut it.

BE CAREFUL WHO YOU FOLLOW

>>6045965

>you give him way too much credit anon.

WRONG

He's in NOTABLES again. This time, all about a bullshit squabble that has NOTHING to do with news!

Are we the News or are we a tabloid?

Wanna be taken seriously or laughed at?

We've been here before. If allowed to continue, it will get worse and Anons reputation will be harmed- AS INTENDED.

Give him an inch and he'll shit all over what we've built.

You are naive

>>6046044

>at least i dont fill the notables with breitbart and …'

At least''? This is what Anons strive for? The least? FOOLISH comment and ridiculous idea.

If WE ARE THE NEWS, we shouldn't be using any alt news site but generating our own news via our own research.

What gets to Notables should be vetted and sound, not about a childhood level squabble.

Embarrassing.