>>16
It's not like #11 though, because in that case it was an honest mistake that two people started the new thread at the same time (although the earlier, more legitimate one was much more pleasant in that case as well). This time it's just one sore loser trying to rewrite history.

I wonder if perhaps it's somebody relatively new trying to keep up with some perceived orthodoxy in thread titling. If so, I would encourage them to just look at how much variation there is in the formatting of the earlier iterations - I mean, just look at #6 for crying out loud. For that matter, it's not just the current thought threads, but also the Grandpa threads, and more or less any long-continuing series. And do you know what everyone else did when they didn't like the new thread title? They made, perhaps, one post to say so, and then just got on with their lives without kicking up an ungodly fuss over it.

Furthermore, if anyone thinks I alone strongarmed this thread into existence/success, you couldn't be further from the truth. >>999 of the previous thread wasn't even me; I was just continuing the previous thread when the thought of making the next iteration something a little more cute and happy struck me, so I altered one of the tags on a whim. I also haven't posted in either thread since >>1, because I was curious to see how things turned out. Every other post in this thread was made by people who support - or at least tolerate - cute girls.

For those poor, unenlightened souls among you who have somehow convinced yourselves that you dislike cute girls, I'm willing to compromise: this modification needn't last more than one thread. From the next iteration onwards I'm happy for it to return to [Personal].

What this all really means though, is that you, dear reader, should just forget about that other loser thread for losers and post exclusively in this warm, happy, inviting thread instead.