Moaist comback?

This forum is for discussion of politics, diplomacy, law, and justice
User avatar
SoupOrMan
Posts: 5685
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:58 am

Re: Moaist comback?

Post by SoupOrMan »

As usual, don't screw your domestic market over for cheap gains elsewhere.
Remember, folks, you can't spell "douche" without "Che."

“PET PARENTS?” You’re not a “pet parent.” You’re a pet owner. Unless you’ve committed an unnatural act that succeeded in spite of biology. - Glenn Reynolds
User avatar
HTRN
Posts: 12397
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Moaist comback?

Post by HTRN »

Weetabix wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:26 pm I'd read elsewhere that Hollywood was losing money
Hollywood losing money?!

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
HTRN, I would tell you that you are an evil fucker, but you probably get that a lot ~ Netpackrat

Describing what HTRN does as "antics" is like describing the wreck of the Titanic as "a minor boating incident" ~ First Shirt
User avatar
Weetabix
Posts: 6106
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: Moaist comback?

Post by Weetabix »

I mean IRL losses, not Hollywood "losses."

ETA: and it couldn't happen to nicer people
Note to self: start reading sig lines. They're actually quite amusing. :D
User avatar
Windy Wilson
Posts: 4875
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:32 am

Re: Moaist comback?

Post by Windy Wilson »

HTRN wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:16 pm Was I the only only one thinking they pulled a Jurassic park" on an extinct giant flightless bird from reading the title?
No, that was where my mind went at first, too.
The use of the word "but" usually indicates that everything preceding it in a sentence is a lie.
E.g.:
"I believe in Freedom of Speech, but". . .
"I support the Second Amendment, but". . .
--Randy
Post Reply