>>7920164 (lb)
>What’s the rationale for it being in there other than last baker left it for you?
I noted that reason as well. I suppose one might
argue there is a rebuttable presumption previous notables are g2g, however….
IF this guy has claimed private (NOT VISIBLE to public…personal comms and private not the same) comms they are not to be totally trusted and ought to come with a warning attached.