On your first comment, you said --->"Nnn...no. no they aren't necessarily. Maybe by fluke now and then, but certainly not as a rule."
Now you want to claim it's because of tags, which by definition, would be a "rule". Make up your mind. You keep shifting the goalposts to suit yourself, I provide proof of what you initially deny and now it's all of a sudden not a random fluke but based on tags.
Did you ever notice this at the bottom of the page?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
http://m.isitnormal.com/poll/are-people-unreasonable-at-times-241223/
To
http://m.isitnormal.com/poll/have-you-accepted-most-people-are-going-to-let-you-down-240372/
To
http://m.isitnormal.com/poll/is-it-normal-for-a-waiver-to-take-this-long-240720/
To
http://m.isitnormal.com/poll/does-this-site-have-moderation-at-all-240211/
To
http://m.isitnormal.com/poll/why-the-truth-is-a-matter-of-opinion-240923/
--
charli.m
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
What part of "tags" are you not understanding, you retard?
I'm not disagreeing that you're finding this. I'm giving an alternate and far more realistic reason for it, but you insist on monging it up.
Have at it. There's no fixing stupid.
--
Anonymous Post Author
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-2
-2
On your first comment, you said --->"Nnn...no. no they aren't necessarily. Maybe by fluke now and then, but certainly not as a rule."
Now you want to claim it's because of tags, which by definition, would be a "rule". Make up your mind. You keep shifting the goalposts to suit yourself, I provide proof of what you initially deny and now it's all of a sudden not a random fluke but based on tags.