dChan
Anonymous ID: 22d011 May 5, 2019, 1:08 a.m. No.6419058   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>9067 >>9105

>>6419041

  1. "whining" is your word

  2. noticing that it's ineffective in the job we were told it would do causes an observant person to wonder why we were told it would do something that it has not done.

  3. Again, 'whining and shilling' are words chosen intentionally to denigrate and devalue anyone who speaks up, just like the CIA created the term 'Conspiracy Theorist' for anyone who questioned the official JFK Assassination story.

 

Regular Anons who have contributed much to this work here are not suddenly 'whining, retarded shills' overnight, just because they noticed that the captcha does not perform as advertised.

>>6419053

Anonymous ID: 22d011 May 5, 2019, 1:28 a.m. No.6419101   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>9120 >>9132 >>9136 >>9142 >>9154 >>9236

>>6419067

Unless one is braindead, (you) can't help but notice that the discussion here is not whether the captcha is 'working like a captcha.' (We're not stupid, captchas are everywhere on the web.)

 

The discussion clearly is about the lack of any discernible, positive result being accomplished as a result of having an extra captcha between every response. It has been observed by us all for awhile now, and the board has just as much (actual) shilling, spamming, and 'bot posts' as ever before.

 

The only NEW thing is, whenever anyone points out that the redundant captcha has no positive benefits, (you) call those people 'shills, whiners, and retards.'

This doesn't make your precious captcha look better, perform better, or clean up the board in any way.

Instead, it makes (you) look just as toxic as the Fake News, calling anybody who owns a MAGA hat a "racist" because they can't argue substance. Rather than explaining why their policies are better, they simply call us names.

 

You are doing the same thing. You are disregarding the truth about how ineffective the captcha is, and name-calling, because (you) have no argument.