Re: Child not pornogorgraphy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Artemis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjmacky
The final part was this:
The only reason any of my posts manage to come across as a coherent message is because of heavy editing.
Just how fat is your editor? :blink:
That makes you the second person on this board to insinuate that I'm fat.
Re: Child not pornogorgraphy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
manker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjmacky
I wasn't done but had to post that, you see what the fuck I did there. Seriously, I mistyped it while composing a post about it!
In the post you replied to, I wrote 'dictates the your formulation'.
If there is a message here, it's that the omniscient grammar gods don't want to fix you.
Why'd you fix it? I didn't really read all of it, sorry :(
Like, I read the whole thing, but the only part I actually took in was the part I quoted. My head was somewhere else for the rest.
Re: Child not pornogorgraphy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjmacky
Quote:
Originally Posted by
manker
I don't actually use my right baby small for you're. I use ruby ring. Weird.
Anyway, I don't know how anyone gets it wrong. Perhaps if you started to say you are instead of you're in your mind when you are thinking stuff and eventually you'll train your mind to separate the two when you're writing.
Fuck your PhD, this is important stuffs.
You're not fully QWERTY compliant then. Also, your advice goes counter to my proposed theory.
By any chance, do you have six fingers on your right hand, manker? :lookaroun
Re: Child not pornogorgraphy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barbarossa
Drunken drivers have a tendency to yaw all over the road.
:happy::lol:
Re: Child not pornogorgraphy
Here comes J-dye to show how it's done.
Re: Child not pornogorgraphy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjmacky
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Artemis
Just how fat is your editor? :blink:
That makes you the second person on this board to insinuate that I'm fat.
If you read the six words above carefully again you will grasp that I was insinuating that you have in your employ an overweight person to edit your poasts, of indeterminate age/sex/race/religion/body type/BMI & charisma. Since they are completely fictional you can fill in the blanks yourself I will even provide you with some crayons. :blink:
Re: Child not pornogorgraphy
Has anyone considered the posibility that we are just witnessing the new, completely forum-fried Dave in action? He's floating around all pre-med, and all...
Re: Child not pornogorgraphy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Artemis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjmacky
That makes you the second person on this board to insinuate that I'm fat.
If you read the six words above carefully again you will grasp that I was insinuating that you have in your employ an overweight person to edit your poasts, of indeterminate age/sex/race/religion/body type/BMI & charisma. Since they are completely fictional you can fill in the blanks yourself I will even provide you with some crayons. :blink:
Don't backstep I know you know I am my own editor
Re: Child not pornogorgraphy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjmacky
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Artemis
If you read the six words above carefully again you will grasp that I was insinuating that you have in your employ an overweight person to edit your poasts, of indeterminate age/sex/race/religion/body type/BMI & charisma. Since they are completely fictional you can fill in the blanks yourself I will even provide you with some crayons. :blink:
Don't backstep I know you know I am my own editor
How do you know I know you are your own very bad editor?
Re: Child not pornogorgraphy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Artemis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjmacky
Don't backstep I know you know I am my own editor
How do you know I know you are your own
very bad editor?
like any decent human being would let some of this shit pass through
I'm saying editors are decent human beings.