>>3327815If you are not underaged then you must be a babyfaced midget who keeps people guessing. It's the only answer.
>>3327886Thanking the heavens I haven't encountered that myself, I've only met fringe people who just aren't as invested and changed the topic. With anonymous lewd posts there's always some humour or performance to it, you know it's done in part to amuse yourself and others so you don't take it 100%.
>>3327887>odd characterizations or opinions on the swords/ships which make me question if we're really discussing the same charactersThis is what worries me, either that I'm off kilter or that everyone's going to be so in their own interpretations we'll never see eye to eye on things. As said, it's not especially deep, which means while I can point at justifications for extended character traits I enjoy, they never feel set in stone or obvious enough to assume we're all on the same wavelength.
Re: popular swords. I'm not sure how to put it but I've always thought the way I knew /a/ threads were okay was because people could both joke at swords' expense and talk about their serious side; Anons discuss more than one angle. If someone enjoys only one trait in a sword, in a vacuum, it just ain't honmaru. Permacutesy is as bad as perma-angst.
>>3328005>apologising for sounding elitistThe whole of /a/ gets dubbed elitist on a daily basis, don't fret about it. You didn't mean all fans of certain swords, and I don't think we're accusing anyone around here of it. Anon's taking it personally when I think we all know the types of fan we're actually griping about. People met irl or on bigger sites are more likely to be disappointing, especially since there's far more of them. /sword/ is a concentrate of reasonably like-minded people.
>>3328041I think they just got the wrong word. I'm not sure if infuriating works or something else. It's like reading shitty gossip just to be a little outraged.
