>>6496809

not sure how a baker can "self-nominate" 19 out of 22 notables. that means that the baker would have to post the content, then nom the content and include as notable.

I took a quick look at the past notables on the board which shows that is a BS argument and easy to prove as such.

Sounds like the anon needs to learn how to bake if panties are in that big of a wad.

>>6496978

agreed that sometimes its easier to grab the sauce yourself, but it's not realistic to say that your would do it 19 times in a single bread. Bakers go thru nearly each post (shill posting aside) and don't have the bandwidth to do that much notable homework.

just my 2 cents.

>>6497045 a4b8d0

>>6496822 a4b8d0

>>6496915 a4b8d0

newfags and dittoheads… this is what a shillfag looks like. Disregard them, but no need to filter them. they are slow witted and don't stay very long b/c of lack of attention.

>>6497272

bakers volunteer to capture information that is relevant to the qresearch board, digs, articles, anon theories, etc…

as long as it pertains to qresearch and is original, it should be a notable. nothing more or less.

i have been here a while and have seen a rogue baker now and again, but not often. we have a pretty good group of bakers here (live bake baker not withstanding) help archive information for the Q movement.