it's funny how the posters who say things like "im hesitant to post now because of what could happen to me" seem to be people who never had anything interesting to post to begin with
not the most logically sound bit. (usually) shitty posters are shitty people, (usually) shitty people recount stories about themselves or do the "me" and "I" sentences like women do 90% of the time.
it still doesnt take away from the fact that you are using "shitty posts" to justify this new incentive/constraint: if you fuck up and give anything away in 15 years that can be traced to you, we will use it to get at you. if it bothers you, thats your problem that it bothers you, and you put it out in the first place.
that seems pretty reasonable. i dont argue that its rational. but here's what i dont understand, why do you need to do it this way? look if PosterA posts about some shitty boat or pics of some shitty purchase decision and next week comes out bitching about govt and him being on welfare, its your duty to shit on someone for being a tool. PosterB talking about 'sharp knees' on an actress should be reminded he's 500lb and all that.
but thats not what some people are balking at, its the google searches leading to raw posts read by 'normies' in someone's acquantance/professional circles.
i think the stimulants are making me way more interested int his post than i should be. i have no idea why im playing devils advocate for 5000 words.
Last edited: