>>11
not realizing that I was stating that knowledge of the origin and the early days, as well as the contemporary usage, is essential for completely understanding the evolution of any in-joke, and forcing me to restate my belief that while the first permutation often has little to do with the latter ones (as is true in this case), knowledge of later permutations from 2008-2010 would lead one to my same conclusion of there being no acceptable standard for ``back to /b/, please''
That, combined with your views on the correlation between the amount of effort put into a post and the quality of the post, the correlation between the amount of effort put into it and the lack of a sensible raison d'etre for a post as it relates to its quality, as well as your apparent desire to spread misinformation regarding Wikipedia's convention of using superscript numerals for footnotes
*, compels me to conclude that
we should probably go back to talking about Bjarnes & No-bell.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Prokudin-Gorsky