TL;DR - RawTextQDump anon, I apologize for removing your link.
RE:
>–Raw Q Text Dump - Amended
>pastebin.com/3YwyKxJE
>>>86977 , >>86798 , >>86900 , >>87061 , >>92692
>SpreadSheetAnon and MA have vouched for RawTxtAnon that his work is accurate.
>If any anons find inaccuracies in the Raw Text Q Dump, please post a list of them, as with any resource.
i'd like to issue an apology to the anon who made the raw text Q dump. i am the baker who first removed the link. i had no malicious intent in doing so. it was reported to me as having inaccuracies, so i removed it. in hindsight that was a mistake on my part. at most, i should have kept the link but also included a link to the comment calling it into question.
in the spirit of full disclosure, i haven't followed Q since the beginning. while that certainly hinders me, i don't feel it prevents me from being a baker. IMO, full knowledge of Q isn't required to bake. a baker's job is to ensure continuity between threads. if i need to stfu and lurk moar, believe me, i have no qualms doing that. assuming the role of baker literally hurts me. see: >>91420. i saw that a baker was consistently needed during the time i was usually online, so i stepped up and filled the role, and i make no apologies about that. for background info, see also: >>38457 and >>64891
if anon wishes to continue this discussion further, please reply in >>3301, as i don't often read through all of the previous general threads. i linked my own posts in that thread, so you can track my ID if it suits you.