>>233131
>there's no rule of anonymity to this place
It's up to the discretion of whoever decides to make an identity for himself to do it for a recognizable purpose. Of course no one can stop you, but you also can't stop anyone from calling you out.
>nothing you just typed matters
How could you be so disingenuous? If what I typed doesn't matter, what you typed doesn't matter. Nothing matters unless somebody decides it matters to them.
>>233135
Probably so, and it's my fault for getting my jimmies rustled, but I wanted to see where this would lead.
>>233136
Yeah that's me, and if you bothered to read you'd know the reason I got banned was bogus. I can confirm that most of the posts since then that were critical against /digi/ were from me, and I was also 757f5a, 0b8cfe, 07bccc, deccc3, 26e84b, 14fc5e, and 3c8b6f >>>/v/243716.
>on a crusade
I rant about that place as much as I can because it's subversive. Namefagging attracts the most conceited kind of scum and sometimes converts otherwise honest anons into conceited scum trying to fit in to whichever identity that has the most perceived authority.
>admits to it
I did it to clear the confusion because I could see that a boogeyman was being created, but like I said in that post, I'm not the only one who's critical of /digi/ such as >>227592, but I was also >>227127 >>227132 >>227139 >>227154 >>227158 >>227168 >>227217 >>227220 >>227225 >>227241 >>227430 >>227444 >>227453 >>227504 >>227123 in that thread and some other posts but that's besides the point