Ladies and gentlemen of [s4s], please come to order. We are here today to discuss a serious matter, that of 1.62MB, proposed at >>4083490 .
As you all know, 230px, 17kb, _2011, &c. &c. are foundations of traditional [s4s]. In recent minutes, a motion has been put forward to expand these traditions to include others: notably 1.62MB. Please keep in mind that the results of this case will determine precedent that will influence future decisions of 2700x3600, .jpg, and perhaps even ,.
Please put forward your arguments now.
>>4083509
crap-ass waste of thread
>>4083576
This. 4MB.
I'm disappointed: I didn't hear one single word of hisses, lols or reptile-like behavior.
Objection!
>>4083716
Hey buddy I think you've got the wrong door. Sir Hissington's courtroom is two threads down.
>>4083728
lol a 3D boy as judge, who could imagine!
>>4083728
>two threads down
>>4083733
epic
We all know that you can only get so many data on a data disc and if you try to fit too many data on data disc then it will get corrupted and you end up having to pick and choose which ones you want on the date of this image ones you don't care about and so that's why 1.62 megabytes is not such a good option because they need be stuck with having to pick ones that you didn't like so much or maybe having the throwaway ones that you like more because he had to sacrifice him to save space or you can try to fit them all and then they will get corrupted it was another room for the mall
>>4083800
>00
>dubs
Strong evidence.
Why 1.26MB when tomorrow we could be moving on to 1.27MB or even 1.3MB? To embrace 1.26MB is to embrace the past. To embrace the past is death. I vote neigh.
>>4083796Go to the Youtube link in the video
