|
RJT goes squirrelshit nuts and closes the Will Smith thread! (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Clovis |
| WOW YU GUYZ ARE RAELLY ALIKE! |
|
|
| st3nc |
should i assume differently...
or is Frenchie is Jenny's dupe??? |
|
|
| denys envy |
| quote: | Originally posted by st3nc
should i assume differently...
or is Frenchie is Jenny's dupe??? |
we're all thinking it. |
|
|
| Ang ' ela_ie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Inertia
ok but, basically, what you're saying all jews will overreact regardless of how ridiculous a story is, if it smells of antisemitism, which will lead to a development of a sensationalist crowd to follow said story? |
I see what youre saying but if that is actually what happens does that make me antisemitic? I dont think so. The other point Id like to make here is that its not just Jewish, it's most religions.
Which brings me to the great question: WHY do we have to tip toe around religion so much? |
|
|
| denys envy |
| frankly jews got enough punishment already... except for frenchie... that ho needs her ass spanked till it bleeds. |
|
|
| Frenchie |
:stongue:
No objection. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
YA. RLY.
"but I don't quite know who you are trying to front for."
Just turn it around:
"but I don't know for whom you are trying to front."
"For who" is always incorrect, since if you use "for" then "who" will always be either genitive or dative case, which both come out to "whom" in English. |
There are innumerable exceptions, especially considering the phrase "front for" has to be used as is, else it lacks in its vernacular nomenclature and using "for" twice to concede grammatical establishment is redundant.
I find your analysis elicit.
/:o |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
Hahaha...waaaaaaiiit a minute!
You fags are more alike than you think!!
P.S. FAGS! |
Maybe so, but at least I live up to my promises! D: |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
There are innumerable exceptions, especially considering the phrase "front for" has to be used as is, else it lacks in its vernacular nomenclature and using "for" twice to concede grammatical establishment is redundant.
I find your analysis elicit.
/:o |
That hurt more than all the others combined.
 |
|
|
| iammesol |
| quote: | Originally posted by Frenchie
This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]
did you say something?? |
looooooooooool |
|
|
|
|
