>>2190845Are you serious with that greentext strawman? How do you take a post literally citing the rules, and misconstrue that as personal bias against the thread's subject matter. Fuck off. It's literally less than 2.5% of the image cap to post six images, and this asshole didn't even post three, and one of them is not allowed. Do you seriously think /e/ doesn't have archives demonstrating that rule-breaking images are deleted? Without even filtering to deleted posts only, archives can't tell when an image is deleted but the post is intact, but you can see an example on the catalog here:
>>2180103. Whatever your passive aggressive dismissal of a rule was referring to is irrelevant since you're demonstrably wrong on both fronts. Do you seriously think archives don't archive rule-breaking posts being deleted? Stop posting. Literally the dumbest "defense" you could have made.
