This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

mega mewtwo looks like...

#1DZilla1080Posted 9/20/2013 3:47:21 PM
Majin buu with Dr dre beats headphones.
---
PSN: DZilla1080
'CUSE it up!
#2JackSolomonPosted 9/20/2013 3:47:53 PM
How did we never notice this before!
#3ArabAlPosted 9/20/2013 3:58:28 PM
[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]
#4DZilla1080(Topic Creator)Posted 9/20/2013 3:59:54 PM
ArabAl posted...
JackSolomon posted...
How did we never notice this before!


Probably because you're an imbecile that cannot convey sarcasm correctly due to your inability to differentiate between an exclamatory statement and a question.


Lol!
---
PSN: DZilla1080
'CUSE it up!
#5JackSolomonPosted 9/20/2013 4:11:54 PM
ArabAl posted...
JackSolomon posted...
How did we never notice this before!


Probably because you're an imbecile that cannot convey sarcasm correctly due to your inability to differentiate between an exclamatory statement and a question.


... Y'know, if you object to the way someone said something, that's fine. If someone insulted you directly, or someone else directly, you would be more than justified in attack them. But calling someone an imbecile because they attempted to convey sarcasm in a text based communication, in which inflection doesn't carry? You've got some serious issues, my friend.

Granted, you springing to the defense of someone else is admirable, kudos to you for that, more people need to behave like that. But you went a BIT too far with the direct insults, when none were thrown out prior to your intervention.
#6Slaya4Posted 9/20/2013 4:14:12 PM
ArabAl posted...
JackSolomon posted...
How did we never notice this before!


Probably because you're an imbecile that cannot convey sarcasm correctly due to your inability to differentiate between an exclamatory statement and a question.


The irony.
---
Huh??
#7Sticky_DerpPosted 9/20/2013 4:18:38 PM
this may well be the most concentrated nonsense in any single topic on this board

and that means nonsense levels are well past nine thousand
---
Fox news get's a pass because they have to go against reality's liberal bias. - SilentS89
#8CakeOfLiesPosted 9/20/2013 4:20:31 PM
Sticky_Derp posted...
this may well be the most concentrated nonsense in any single topic on this board

and that means nonsense levels are well past nine thousand


Must...
Resist...
The urge.......
---
I'm not easily impressed; I'm usually oblivious to whatever's in front of me.
Pokemon White 2 FC: 3139-7420-3142 - THIEF
#9ArabAlPosted 9/20/2013 4:43:44 PM
JackSolomon posted...
ArabAl posted...
JackSolomon posted...
How did we never notice this before!


Probably because you're an imbecile that cannot convey sarcasm correctly due to your inability to differentiate between an exclamatory statement and a question.


... Y'know, if you object to the way someone said something, that's fine. If someone insulted you directly, or someone else directly, you would be more than justified in attack them. But calling someone an imbecile because they attempted to convey sarcasm in a text based communication, in which inflection doesn't carry? You've got some serious issues, my friend.

Granted, you springing to the defense of someone else is admirable, kudos to you for that, more people need to behave like that. But you went a BIT too far with the direct insults, when none were thrown out prior to your intervention.


You insulted his intelligence with your sarcasm, which was uncalled for. Therefore, I took it upon myself to do the same or, rather, take it to the next level (subjective). Granted, I was splitting hairs and I do agree that inflection does not transition well to electronic communication, but there is certainly a difference with the manner that one might read it (again, splitting hairs).


However, that insignificant reason aside, it was mostly my attempt at humor.

Ha...
---
~Bear-Toe~
#10JayAreVeePosted 9/20/2013 4:45:33 PM(edited)
I'm glad I read this topic. I feel enriched from the experience. No sarcasm intended.
---
It's should've, could've, would've; NOT should of, could of, would of