>>6873
the 2nd part of the post was meant for >>6865. I forgot to add the number.

>>6864
>Hence why it was me joking.
oh...you´ve got me.

>Depth = layers though I agree could work.
in general, that trend might work. However, there is an art for those who throw a powerful line (or two) in order to close the thread and call it a day without needing more (in fact, if they added more, they would ruin that perfection). Those who are capable to go beyond the shitposting territory and deliver effective posts that sum up and nail completely in a short manner the reply with such an amount of clarity... might land with more grace than a post of biblical proportions. Just that many attempt to do that and deliver the usual low amount of quality though.