So it was your arm then, that's what I thought.
EDit: I was gonna' post that whatever you wrote, just for the hell of it, like.
Error xɐʇuʎs
BT Rep: +1
So it was your arm then, that's what I thought.
EDit: I was gonna' post that whatever you wrote, just for the hell of it, like.
Last edited by Snee; 01-20-2005 at 05:49 PM.
effendi
Christ no!
Did you not see the tatooage
Edit: Yeah, the thought you may do that did cross my mind
Last edited by manker; 01-20-2005 at 05:51 PM.
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
Error xɐʇuʎs
BT Rep: +1
Shouldn't that be "might"?
effendi
WhyOriginally Posted by SnnY
Shouldn't that be "might"?
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
Error xɐʇuʎs
BT Rep: +1
'cos it wasn't ongoing, more of a future anticipatory statement.
Poster
BT Rep: +9
(.)(.)(.)(.)
Last edited by silent h3ro; 01-20-2005 at 09:43 PM.
effendi
It works so it's alright. Mixing up tenses, participles and the like - as long as it's done in a subtle way - can serve to highlight colloquialisms and give a poster an individual style.
Can it not.
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
Error xɐʇuʎs
BT Rep: +1
I wouldn't know, I only write proper english.
:straightfacelike:
effendi
:tehvodkaneverlies:
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
Error xɐʇuʎs
BT Rep: +1
It does however affect the clarity of one's discourse somewhat.
:tehvodkaneverlies:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
(.)(.)
Bookmarks