>>1956064>while the previous thread is still up,but nobody was posting in because it wasn't bumping. we usually get over 20 posts per day. we were down to near 20 in a week because everyone was waiting for the new thread so people would actually see their question
>>1956064>on the slowest board on this web siteyou've never been to /po/? /gd/?
>>1956064>at least do it properlyI asked someone else to make one under the threat of making it myself. sure enough, I fucked something up. should've made it yourself, but you didn't.
