>>6042459

Since the neon article is being discussed … I don't find the supporting argument substantive. It all seems to hinge on the one (you) and neon misrepresents what that symbol means:

"You see that green (You) circled next to the arrow in that image? That is what gets generate by the boards when an Anon is quoting themselves."

No, that is generated by the boards when an Anon is viewing a post in which the Anon is quoted. By anyone.

Doug Stewart seems to acknowledge that the (you) was a reference to his own post, so I'll disregard the logical possibility that he posted a screenshot taken by someone else. So he's 72240c (interesting).

But neon's saying he's also f46639, and neon's reasoning looks flatly wrong to me. Neon says the (you) means f46639 was replying to himself when replying to 72240c. But all the (you) means was that f46639's post referencing 72240c was seen by 72240c.

I would find it entirely plausible that the same person was posting both sides of the fight. But if there's evidence supporting this in neon's article, I don't see it. (May be there and I'm missing it … if so, my apologies)

I like neon's work, I'm not one of the anons who bashes neon because of selling hats or whatever … I'm just really baffled about this one.

>>6042629

>>6042645

If f46649 was replying to himself as 72240c, wouldn't the screenshot show a (you) beside both the post citation (where it is) and also the post's header (where if I post I see a (you) when looking at my own post)?

>>6042657

Thanks for the reference to prior bread. I'm working on understanding what it all means, and willl abstain from senseless rehashing.

It's kind of maddening actually looking at the shill posts I usually ignore. Have to train self to see these posts as just nodes with IDs and not try to parse sensible content out of them.