>>5
Hey buddy, I'm not one to nitpick but I must infer from your post that you were either poster
>>2 or
>>3 in this thread. So you either posted "jeepers" or "weeaboo", both well known /b/ terms. It looks like your argument has reached an ironic paradox now this evidence has come to light being that your argument contains falsehoods and, in itself, /b/-esque language.