Me: “No fucking shit.” You: “wahhhhhhh” storms off
Me: “Well, look who’s back.” You: “wahhhhhhh” storms off
Oh no, you might get mad, the least threatening thing on the internet.
mateomaui
joined 2 years ago
I’m not the one who keeps saying he’s not coming back and not reading, yet keeps doing so anyway.
You’ve literally thrown multiple tantrums already.
Then shut the fuck up and stop responding. As long as you appear in my inbox, I’ll be showing up in yours.
Apparently they were going to make an attempt, but life comes at you fast
The game blows but this review has a lot of replay value if you haven’t seen it already
Came back from a three day weekend to this.
So the guy who got pissy over a common phrase meaning “Thank you, Captain Obvious” and who cannot be bothered to read the answers to his questions says someone else should grow up LOL.
Next time you want to play the “so what is it you don’t understand about this” game, pick someone else to target, or make an attempt to understand yourself. Some of us actually don’t like that game at all, but we are very adept players.
You should be embarrassed someone had to explain the concept to you that many times.
Also, you keep coming back for more. Evidently you’re really unable to learn something.
Robin Williams approves.
A fat stack of pickles.
Unconcerned. You didn’t bother to really read or understand the first few times.
Well, look who’s back.
What part of the original commenter’s colloquial use of the word “guilty” did you not understand?
Outside the specific legal distinction, to the public at large, he’s effectively guilty. “Liable” or whatever, he did it.
Do you need a picture drawn for you or something?
edit: what’s remarkable to me here is that you were too busy being offended by the phrase “no fucking shit” to recognize that was an acknowledgment that there is a legal distinction. That’s what you’re still arguing about. I already acknowledged that there is a legal distinction, while also pointing out that it doesn’t really matter to people who say he’s guilty. Because he is. He only has a technicality to claim he wasn’t guilty.
Yes, my point about the effective uselessness of it in this case does still stand, whether or not you agree with it. Yet, you basically did agree with it:
Is he guilty of the things of which he’s been accused? Also yes, but in a colloquial sense.
Feel free to not argue, you could have made that decision already.
The funny part is I’ve never been mad. I was vaguely annoyed the first time, then amused ever since. You’ve been mad. I’ve just replied and you’ve whined about it.
I’m sorry you’re too dumb to understand the nature of your own replies.