>>112478
i am not >>112469, and how am i supposed to help if i can't voice my complaints no matter how i word it? all i'm saying is that there are more efficient means of updating the index than reposting the whole thing over again. it's not pointless, just try scrolling up and see how convenient it is to have a conversation with the people who spoke since the last time it was posted. again, i am grateful for what you are doing, and you don't have to take my advice by any means, but please don't get upset at me just for wanting to voice constructive criticism. anyways, it seems you have a system, and you find it more convenient to stick to it rather than take my advice. that's perfectly fine, as i said in the original post. have a good day, and thank you for your contributions to this thread.