beautiful bread as always, baker.
Looks like you're on for at least another.
bu baker here if you're wanting handoff later
>They are trying to divide US
Trying to divide this board, also, anon against anon
We will NOT be divided.
We will rejoice in our commonalities
And discuss our differences
With openness and mutual respect.
Tolerance shall be our greatest virtue.
UNITY is everything.
WWG1WGA
I'll be here, gy.
'General comment on q proofs and POTUS tweets or activities:
Q proofs are notoriously difficult to evaluate. Anons are fond of saying that "nothing is coincidence." True enough, if one subscribes to the view (which I do) that everything in life is interconnected.
However, some things are connected more closely than others. Also, some things are connected in a way that is particularly relevant to certain parties. The connections that interest us many anons on this board are the kind that tend to show a (mysterious) link between POTUS and Q, wherein Q forecasts something at one point which later seems to anticipate something POTUS says or does.
That's fine. But opinions can and do vary about which events seem sufficiently linked to constitute a "Q proof." The more specious claims are rejected by all but the one who put them forth; the most amazing claims are endorsed by all (or at least most). But then there are all the others, the majority, which have their supporters and detractors.
This particular Q proof seems okay to me if not striking. The 2 days ahead of schedule wasn't from a year ago, date is random (jan 2019). Other q post IS from a year ago (6-20-18) and speaks to a change in tactics. The question is whether what DJT rally is a "change in tactics." A case can be made for that, since he announced his candidacy, etc. So if I were grading I'd give this one a B- to B.
If baking, I might add it, especially in light of anon support. HOWEVER: during day breads, news takes priority and bakers have little time to anaylze anything without a textual summary. So likely I would pass it over wo/noms. Even with noms, I might not have the time to really reflect on it. My thinking might be, "Try evening shift" (slower, often less newsy).
ONE LAST THING:
You want baker to look at your Q proof?
Include a one-sentence summary of what's going on. Otherwise, baker must study the proof, think about it, then create the summary. That's a disincentive. If anon cannot include a descriptor, why expect baker to?
No, I will not. I am pro-baker handles, pro-baker identifiable pastebins. Keep us honest, ya know? If something goes wrong in the dough–and there have been some problems of late–can be traced back to a specific baker. Which is good. Makes us take responsibility for what we say and do. Unlike shills and negative shitposters whose anonymity often gives them license to attack, demean, and ridicule others. Why don't you focus your efforts on trying to address that problem for a while? Why are the vast majority of posts on QResearch either spam, shills or irresponsible shitposters? Not that I would limit anybody's free speech, do what you want. But let's all be aware of where the REAL problems lie on this board, and most of them have a lot moar to do with with destructive shilling, etc., than "name-fagging" bakers. Complete bullshit, imo.
Respect your difference of opinion, anon. You have yours, I have mine.
But no, it is not as "simple as that."
You are stating your opinion as though it's a known fact.
GOT SAUCE FOR THAT, ANON??
Because that's what facts require–sauce.
I at least explained by reasoning for supporting baker id's. What is your reasoning?
Another unreasoned response. You're using ridicule to try to shut me up. Won't work, I've got a brain and I use it.
BO says 80% of bakers are comp'd without any evidence, also. No sauce, just an assertion. Exactly what anons need to reject on a research board like this.
>>679292902
As in saying "I"?
Hmmm….well, IRL-wise, "this anon" has expertise/study/teaching. This is stilted and old-fashioned speech, imo. Not even a name involved, this "I". Are we less self-centered when we say "this anon." Or use the royal "we"? Or passive voice? No. Same person, whether anon or shill, selfish or selfless. Places the emphasis is exactly the wrong place. Will remain consistent on this point due to much thought and reflection. But will also do the best possible job on the work, that is what I came here for. "The work is all that matters."