SoyBooru
- 12/31/25 - Uploads now have image previews.
- 12/28/25 - Soybooru happenings have a wiki page. Click here to read.
- 12/25/25 - Oh Christmascux!
- 12/21/25 - Questions, complaints, or suggestions? Send them to soysneed@soyjak.st or mustard@soyjak.st or post in the complaint thread or something
- 12/20/25 - We wish you a happy non-denominational winter festivity, we wish you a happy non-denominational winter festivity, and a fauci eurocentric calendar new year 🎆
over 1000 comments award
- hes muslim, and immigrant, but okay, he learned to be shut, unprovoked.
- he is datamining anonymous users just becouse they insulted him, and its killing the 'ru
???
Also nobody's listening to a Vlodson poster.
Sorry, something fucked up while typing
special, they remain anonymous even if you look at their past comments you dumbass. The definition of anonymous is someone unknown or unnamed, and they remain unnamed or unknown, bitch. Being anonymous doesn't erase your history or what you have done, matter of fact, regular users can see who's samekekking now.
That's fine and you can't have your cake and raisin on it, because me calling our their baiting or specialed comments in the past is also humorous, and it's an activity that isn't harmful to them in any way except if they get embarrassed, which makes it even funnier.
Haven't posted a 'pasta in a while and even so, somehow defending my image is posting LLLLLLLLZZZZZZZ to someone who posted a slopjak? Or is it when someone makes an absurd claim and me debunking it? It's quite sad you try to rationalize this.
Many of them did, but the war is done now.
Posting that coal, is him declaring you are on his side.
Under this definition, all of us are anonymous in the same way, except nameflamboyant persons got their willing label, which chuds dont intend to have, but once you reveal their history for clearly not moderation purposes, you are partially forcing it on them. It does not remove their anonymousness, but the difference between chud/nameflamboyant person.
Okay, I dont stand strong with that point since you are the one with look into it, but I want to see the proof anyway, whatever it could be.
Fine
More about LLLLZZZ, I dont know where you took that "youre trying to rationalize it" from, I just say it was technically annoying for people not involved, thats what I started my claim with.
No, because you are named. Chuds are unnamed, you're completely butchering the use of this definition. Nice try though.
It does not because they remain unnamed and unknown, nice try though. I love how you're trying to argue against the Oxford definition and you are failing.
No because nameflamboyant persons have a name, that's already the difference.
Yeah, they don't leave the site. There's your looking, saar. Also then dont derive that conclusion.
Exactly.
They involve themselves via the comments, saar.
Theyre unnamed to remain unrecognized between threads, at least regular users cant do so, thats how your action comes from position of power, as I said, without moderation purposes.
I specified that its not striping them down of their anonymousness entirely (or whatever you pinned as oxford definition) but it forces the label of being recognized between threads on them, something that is chosen once creating account, not using site as chud.
And they are unrecognized especially BETWEEN threads since I dont go out of my way on every thread, 2 threads are nothing unless they're actively delving in every thread like the Braptan gooner, then they're only revealed in those said threads. This arg isn't good.
Then you move the goalpost and concede on two points.
Again, you're not recognized between threads and that makes zero sense as anti-sameflamboyant personging is enabled and we can tell who's who within threads lmao.
[h1][redtext]
[h1][redtext]
[h1][redtext]
[h1][redtext]