>>281596451
>surprising
>/a/ not talking
>about a shitty manipulative series written by a hack
we had talked about it when it aired, so (You) are either late to the party and / or want to artificially promote a series that most of us that watched it dont give a single shit after the fact.
Enjoy talking about other "waste of potential" thread fuel series.
>also
>MUH MAL score
(You) liking to bask in the muck is one thing, wanting to draw us into said muck just to validate your choices is enthusiastically yet hopelessly idiotic.

>>279605321
>That's literally how it works,
In your head, maybe. Its like by getting the services of the same contractor over and over, you are entitled to a free blowjob.