traffik: @Cculber007: So now you've reached the point where you're telling people how they should word things?
Do I really need to remind you that the way you word things usually doesn't make sense to most people? There was nothing wrong with what A1 said. It was just a different way of saying the exact same thing. You are now literally just looking for things to criticize other people for.
champofgalacticretards: @traffik: My logic reason is @Anonymous: SHOULD SAY "the cropped dupe of >>59007", NOT [i]">>59007 with a few characters erased"[/i} UNDERSTAND? You know how many idiots discriminated my grammars for years and years while you did nothing????
Anonymous2(1): going by your two comments here you're telling me I should convey less information, trade 'a' for 'the' in a context where it doesn't make any sense, skip some words entirely, use incorrect forms of others, and end in excessive punctuation marks
think maybe you should have listened to people who were probably trying to help rather than dismissing them as idiots
traffik: @Cculber007: Don't blame the Anon because you jumped down his throat for no good reason and I called you out on it. the truth is, his description of the pic is more accurate than yours. You called the pic a "dupe", which it is not. If it was a dupe, it'd be subject to removal. But it's not at all uncommon for pics with multiple characters in them (like some of those orgy pics Palcomix did back in the day) to be released in multiple versions, focusing on only some of the characters who were in the larger pic. These variations are fair game here. In essence, it's a different pic-- ergo, not a dupe.
It comes down to semantics. You're getting on his case over fucking semantics. It's yet another screaming example of the colossal pain in the ass that you've become.
traffik: @Cculber007: And by the way, let me point out one thing before this goes any further: just 2 days ago, I backed you up against that Anon on >>1149401 and told them that they were wrong and you were right. This goes to show that no matter what my personal opinion of you is, I will back you up when I think you're right. So don't think that I'm just looking to start arguments with you, because I'm not. It just so happens that these days, a large percentage of the time when I see someone here being so ridiculous that I feel like I have to say something, that person is you.
champofgalacticretards: @traffik: You granted Anon's wish and be ready for a street fighting! I like my idea better. Sorry, "few characters"? it is better to say "cropped".
@traffik: You did not read complete in >>114901 so you have a bad habit to leave "unfinished" reading so who is on faut? you.
@Tetragrammaton: Now I see you and traffik are getting along. When will you take him for a movie and restaurant on a date time? lol
I read everything in >>1149401 . How can you assume what I've read and what I haven't?
And it's funny that when two people joke with each other (and I believe that this is the first time that Tetragrammaton and I have ever so much as spoken to each other), you jump to "oh, you guys should go on a date". Maybe you'd have a clearer understanding of civility if you actually, you know, got along with anyone.
champofgalacticretards: @traffik: I said you are [i]ALWAYS RIGHT[/i} that some users say wrong things. The truth is I do not mind to take Tetragrammaton on a date as best buddy/pal. I stated that >>>1149401 was an accident which you haven't READ rest of the comments. You are RIGHT, this anon is WRONG. I got reply from one of admins, "Who cares? Anons say all kinds of stupid shit." Maybe he is right we should ignore anons and their stupid comments. Happy? that you are RIGHT and should be an admin?
Do I really need to remind you that the way you word things usually doesn't make sense to most people? There was nothing wrong with what A1 said. It was just a different way of saying the exact same thing. You are now literally just looking for things to criticize other people for.
think maybe you should have listened to people who were probably trying to help rather than dismissing them as idiots
It comes down to semantics. You're getting on his case over fucking semantics. It's yet another screaming example of the colossal pain in the ass that you've become.
Wonder why that is.
- Reply
- Reply
@traffik: You did not read complete in >>114901 so you have a bad habit to leave "unfinished" reading so who is on faut? you.
@Tetragrammaton: Now I see you and traffik are getting along. When will you take him for a movie and restaurant on a date time? lol
I read everything in >>1149401 . How can you assume what I've read and what I haven't?
And it's funny that when two people joke with each other (and I believe that this is the first time that Tetragrammaton and I have ever so much as spoken to each other), you jump to "oh, you guys should go on a date". Maybe you'd have a clearer understanding of civility if you actually, you know, got along with anyone.