Anonymous ID: 98a811 July 30, 2018, 1:08 a.m. No.2351730   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>1735 >>1750

>>2351701

 

Don't be fucking naive. I personally think the mod team is being legitimately proactive, from a legal standpoint.

 

And the patterns present in this cp attack with attendant BO/BV attack is banaly stupid; yet it illustraes perfectly why BO made the right choice, yet again.

 

Thank you BO, you are a Patriot. Never forget it.

Anonymous ID: 98a811 July 30, 2018, 1:15 a.m. No.2351768   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>1776

>>2351750

 

I never minded boobs.

 

What I do mind is our research board being DCMA'd ;p

 

So apparent who the screeching about this is coming from.

 

So predicatable that the loudest to screech is the actual origin of the problem!

 

Again! What a coinkydink ;)

Anonymous ID: 98a811 July 30, 2018, 1:40 a.m. No.2351916   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>1927

>This is by design

 

>>2351880

>b47f2b

>This just supports their claims that BO/BV's are comped.

 

The idea that it is somewhat of a Mexican standoff is still by design; I think the clowns are trying to make it so that BO has no viable option to mitigate this attack.

 

BV is correct though; there is a way out of every trap.

 

And I agree with this anon BO should absolutely have a conversation with CM about it immediately, at this point. โ†’ >>2351775

 

And I am confident that that way will be found by patriots.

Anonymous ID: 98a811 July 30, 2018, 1:58 a.m. No.2351998   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>2351968

>Mexican standoff, by design

 

You're partially correct; we did not lose the research board. Just the shillposts themselves (on either side of i)t in the last couple of breads are "lost" from what i can seeโ€ฆ

 

I gave my opinion, and have decided based on the responses that the clowns figured that giving the BO a problem with no good apparent answers would split the board.

 

I've got more faith in /ourguys/ than that.

Anonymous ID: 98a811 July 30, 2018, 2:20 a.m. No.2352093   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>2101

>>2352074

 

I don't feel it's worth the time to ask BO to verify that [you] have not been spam shilling this entire time; I'm just simply going to note (to you) that the shills that [you] claim were not [you]โ€ฆ โ€ฆAre using your exact graphic you just spammed.

 

Again.

 

Do you not understand that it does not help your case?

Anonymous ID: 98a811 July 30, 2018, 2:53 a.m. No.2352240   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>2352166

>The onus of proof is on the accuser, no?

 

It is. And you haven't shown anyone any real proof of the claims that you have accused others of doing.

 

The only way to do so would be for you to have evidence that consisted of hardware addresses that corresponded to those ip hashes you so brazenly promote.

 

You don't. Because you do not have the network info of the originating anything. You have fucking hashes and that's it, unless you work for a 3 letter.