>>45975620I'll try to make it simple :
Other OP admitted to not have seen this thread ;
The pic isn't really proof of an anti-multi operation, even more since Multis are mentionned in that OP, and it is funny/memey enough to be used for a thread to represent what /wfg/ can sometimes be ;
Pretty sure the "it's only one guy" idea is wrong for any assumption you made ;
If other OP was the same guy as last thread "shit" OP post, he would have used the same OP format he was so proud of, so it's clearly not the same guy ;
The searching problem is a real problem, not just some random excuse. Myself found out about this one a few hours later after its creation just because I was looking through the catalog randomly, thing I almost never do these days, else I might have never found it ;
I know that he created it for the search reason because he explicitely said it right away when this thread was mentionned to him ;
And, yes, your view on that matter is a big stretch. When trying to explain a phenomenon with few clues, the simplier the answer, the closer to the truth it is. So, either it's some guy who was trying for two months to destroy Multis coincidentally complained about your OP last thread and coincidentally created a new OP hours later of this one as a coup, using the conveniently "excuse" of this thread not being shown through the search function to act clueless so he could have more people backing him up and show how the multiguys are truly bad and should be destroyed forever. Or, it's just a random anon who didn't find the thread through the search function, quickly created a thread as he felt like doing it and used whatever first pic saved in his computer/phone he could find that would represent well the degeneracy of this general, lazyness you can clearly see in his OP, and even mentioned Multis when many others in the past would only mention Battles. Sure, first one would make for an interesting conspiracy theory but the later seems more convincing and realist.
