Originally posted by Seraphim XIII
You have to try? Lol. I responded "stupidly"?Nice. Rofl. Try again.
Ok perhaps your level of comprehension isn't up to the standard of that with a person of Down syndrome. Watch this, look closely now:
Originally posted by Kram3r
Why would I try to be creative with it? You responded stupidly so I just returned the favour. The pleasure is mine.
Did you pick it up now? I didn't have to try anything, I couldn't be bothered. However, I should have known some members can't pick up on implications, sorry my fault. Considering that stupidity is subjective, yes I saw you miserably attempt as stupid, got a problem?
Originally posted by Kram3r
Ok perhaps your level of comprehension isn't up to the standard of that with a person of Down syndrome. Watch this, look closely now:Did you pick it up now? I didn't have to try anything, I couldn't be bothered. However, I should have known some members can't pick up on implications, sorry my fault. Considering that stupidity is subjective, yes I saw you miserably attempt as stupid, got a problem?
AHAHAHAHA!
Oh my god! Funniest thing I've seen in months! You tried to stomp me and f*cked up!
Okay, watch this!
You have to try? Lol. I responded "stupidly"?Nice. Rofl. Try again.
You said "Why would I try to be creative with it?"
This is an indication as an opposition to a parallel mutuality in a primary principal, meaning you're NOT trying to be creative, but when you are, it's an initiate statement indicating you ARE NORMALLY TRYING to be creative when you do apply creativity to a relevant situation.
ROFL, like I said earlier:
Try again.