>>72280342Oh, you're that anon? Well, in that case you should probably know that I wasn't actually referring to YOUR posts in this thread - this time around I was saying "you" in reference to doomposters as an aggregate (basically what
>>72280854 said), and to posts I vaguely remember literally from last Summer (posts which, in all honestly, MIGHT have been him, but might not be). Like, I thought the chance the (You) were him was maybe 10% at most, because your tone and the way you structure your sentences and rhetoric is totally different
