>>6765301

Congrats, new baker! this is graveyard baker, asked if you had any questions last night at the start. Don't worry about little things, little mistakes. They happen all the time.

Do watch for shills trying to trip you up with posts that are old, badly sauced, or untitled full arrows & numbers (impossible to evaluate in a short time). Also shills raising questions or submitting muliple borderline notables ("bakers, what about these?") just when you're getting ready to bake. Lots moar of this than previously.

Also, shills are now asking, why, why, why? all the time. When anons ask why, they explain because explain their reasoning. Shills whine to distract and screw up the breads.

>>6765476

interesting, but where's the sauce?

>>6765512

>abc7.com/underground-explosion-in-downtown-la-pops-out-manhole-covers/5349159/

Story intriguing but very short and doesn't include a map of tunnels. Do you know where the map came from?

>>6765528

This is a brand new baker.

So: you detect fuckery, eh?

What precisely are you referring to?

We deal in facts, logic, and argumentation.

Where's your facts, anon?

Is it just the "fact" that anon is baking that arouses suspicion?

>>6765476

>>6765546

Thanks for source. Says this tunnel system was planned as of 2017. How much has been completed, if any?

This article from last Oct. says "Boring Company’s first tunnel under LA will open December 10th [2018]. Doesn't says which part or whether it actually happened. Based on a tweet from Musk.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/22/18008674/elon-musk-boring-company-first-tunnel-la-date-opening

This article says there's a tunnel in Hawthorne but doesn't provide a map.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/12/18/boring-company-opened-its-first-tunnel–heres-what-its-like-inside.html

There are some later articles but none indicate that this tunnel system actually exists yet. I'm guess that a tiny portion exists so far, just enough to do some test drives.

So the map seems to be proposed at this stage not existent. If you determine otherwise, would be interest to know.

>>6765548

I'm not the one who stuck around to help–had IRL–but am happy to help whenever I am around.

>>6765630

Re idea that any baker is engaged in "fuckery":

In the example you give, these notes are almost identical, except for the few new baker added. I'm still not sure what company name was missing in the final bun. And stuff like that always varies from baker to baker, anyway. And if a baker DID include less info, that's not a sign of fuckery, IMO. It happens all the time; some bakers say "NEW DJT tweet" while others give the entire tweet. When two notables lists are merged, some stuff changes.

A real shill baker would do something like say including 2-3 posts of known spam like the "protocols." That's hard to miss. But one bad post is easy to include, I saw one in the last day, and it wasn't a shill who included it. I've done it, too.

PLEASE ANONS

Be careful about attributing negative motives to bakers and anybody else on very slight (or even zero) evidence. Real fuckery–like the kind we see with MSM articles on Q–is easy to identify.

>>6765372

Best thing in an opinion piece is have some sauce to show that others support your position. or multiple arguments for why you take that position. This piece is not great because it has neither. Plus, it paints quite a negative picture of POTUS.

If I saw this in notables, I would point this out and ask why it is included. But anons have to be quick enough to notice stuff. Bakers especially new ones often scan articles and miss points that seem obvious to readers not under time pressure. I know coz I've done it.

Shills have a field day with baker mistakes–and also plant stories to create mistakes. But sometimes, they can pull in anons, too. I do not accuse anyone of being a shill or shill baker, but instead ask them, "why did you do this"? After some conversation, it's easy to tell the dif between honest mistakes and deliberate ones. And there are a LOT moar of the former than the latter when it comes to bakers.

>>6765760

Yeah, that's my take too.

Breads are never perfect, but they're still a great source of info. QResearch does an amazing job with 24/7 new aggregation, considering our resources: all volunteer group, completely open to anyone to contribute, constantly under attack by multiple hostile sources.

WWG1WGA. Congratulations on a job well-done, anons!!!

>>6765746

Not mad, just a digger. And looking for ways to better communicate, o7.

>>6765912

Some anons assume that any king of self-identification is name-fagging , which seems to automatically identified with fame-fagging. And yet we have Q, BO/BVs–all of whom have names in the form of handles. And we have bakers with handles, which IMO is good for communications and handoffs. Baker was once given a handoff and didn't realize it until about 600 because of confusion over which of several bakers (some were spot bakers wo/handles) was taking the bake. Good thing baker had notables, just in case. The important thing is to focus on our work, our purpose here, and not sweat the small stuff. We are servants of a great cause, great privilege to be here, fellow patriots.