Why do pedants pedant?


  • Banned

    @djls45 I just checked with dictionary, and found out that "just" is neither subordinating nor coordinating conjunction - because it's an adverb. So you're not just wrong about the topic of conjunctions - the topic itself is wrong!

    BTW, why the hell you copied my link? Or did you not even check my citation before rebuttal?



  • @Gąska said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @djls45 I just checked with dictionary, and found out that "just" is neither subordinating nor coordinating conjunction - because it's an adverb. So you're not just wrong about the topic of conjunctions - the topic itself is wrong!

    "Just" is not a conjunction, and I never said it was. The conjunction in that sentence is "like".

    BTW, why the hell you copied my link? Or did you not even check my citation before rebuttal?

    I copied your link because it explains the issue very well. I read all three pages of it, and the third page in particular clarifies that coordinating conjunctions (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so) can be appropriate sentence starters, but subordinating conjunctions are not. "Like" is a subordinating conjunction.


  • Banned

    @djls45 anyway. For some reason, you seem to think only proper sentenced are allowed in forum posts. Subordinative conjunctions can't begin sentences, but they can begin sentence fragments.



  • @Gąska said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    For some reason

    This is a :pendant: thread, so I was :pendant:ing it.



  • @djls45 said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @Gąska said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    For some reason

    This is a :pendant: thread, so I was :pendant:ing it.

    Ah. I see your problem now. This is a meta:pendant:- thread.


  • kills Dumbledore

    @Mikael_Svahnberg
    0_1496835812020_9a4e2fbe-a4f9-4d87-a00a-a7060063de24-image.png
    A red vs blue :pendant: thread?



  • @Jaloopa said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @Mikael_Svahnberg
    0_1496835812020_9a4e2fbe-a4f9-4d87-a00a-a7060063de24-image.png
    A red vs blue :pendant: thread?

    Please keep politics discussions safely in the Garage.


  • FoxDev

    @Arantor said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @Jaloopa said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @Mikael_Svahnberg
    0_1496835812020_9a4e2fbe-a4f9-4d87-a00a-a7060063de24-image.png
    A red vs blue :pendant: thread?

    Please keep politics discussions safely in the Garage.

    He might be talking about http://www.roosterteeth.com/show/red-vs-blue 😜



  • @RaceProUK said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @Arantor said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @Jaloopa said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @Mikael_Svahnberg
    0_1496835812020_9a4e2fbe-a4f9-4d87-a00a-a7060063de24-image.png
    A red vs blue :pendant: thread?

    Please keep politics discussions safely in the Garage.

    He might be talking about http://www.roosterteeth.com/show/red-vs-blue 😜

    Fun as that may be, the alt attribute on the img tag indicates that he simply meant "meta".

    This is a [meta] [pedant]-thread.



  • @djls45 said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @RaceProUK said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @Arantor said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @Jaloopa said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @Mikael_Svahnberg
    0_1496835812020_9a4e2fbe-a4f9-4d87-a00a-a7060063de24-image.png
    A red vs blue :pendant: thread?

    Please keep politics discussions safely in the Garage.

    He might be talking about http://www.roosterteeth.com/show/red-vs-blue 😜

    Fun as that may be, the alt attribute on the img tag indicates that he simply meant "meta".

    This is a [meta] [pedant]-thread.

    There is a surprising lack of symbols for "meta", so I just went with the first GIS hit. I figured that if someone recognised the symbol, I would just appear savvy. To what, I have no idea. :caughtwithmypantsdown:


  • Considered Harmful

    @djls45 said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    And I always love cover letters that have a blatant disregard for grammar and spelling, mainly because that's one thing you write wherewhich you really want to be as correct as possible.

    It's also not technically wrong to use "which" above but it changes the meaning from a statement about the author to a statement about the product. And if you want to change the meaning that way, you should use "that", at least in American English, but then again you can just omit it completely as it's superfluous in this context.

    "Where" is only correct in SQL or when referring to a location, but a location cannot really be "as correct as possible" and this is not a SQL clause.

    There are lots of generally acceptable examples where location is merely metaphorical, like "physical education is a subject where children express their understanding through action" or "I think I have this thing where everybody has to think I'm the greatest".

    Thus, the only acceptable options would be "which", "that", or nothing (with an implied "that"). The difference between "that" and "which" indicates whether your desire for the thing to be correct is a defining characteristic of "one thing [that] you write" or that desire is only an added detail, respectively. Because correctness is the focus of discussion and not just supplementary information, "that" would probably be the best option to use.

    If it's merely added detail, it can by definition be left out without changing the basic meaning. "that's one thing you write." doesn't mean the same thing at all. The British may get away with using "which" and "that" interchangably but for an American that's not a claim to fameentitlement to :pendant:

    I don't see how it could be a statement about the author. Can you explain that?

    The original said "where you want to be correct". You, the author of the cover letter, want to be correct in your work. If you change the "where" to "that"/"which", it means you want it, the cover letter, to be correct. Boils down to the same thing of course but as you want the letter to be correct exactly because it reflects on you and the way you work, it makes sense to emphasize the author.


  • 🚽 Regular

    @LaoC said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    There are lots of generally acceptable examples where location is merely metaphorical

    👀



  • @LaoC said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @djls45 said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    And I always love cover letters that have a blatant disregard for grammar and spelling, mainly because that's one thing you write wherewhich you really want to be as correct as possible.

    It's also not technically wrong to use "which" above but it changes the meaning from a statement about the author to a statement about the product. And if you want to change the meaning that way, you should use "that", at least in American English, but then again you can just omit it completely as it's superfluous in this context.

    "Where" is only correct in SQL or when referring to a location, but a location cannot really be "as correct as possible" and this is not a SQL clause.

    There are lots of generally acceptable examples where location is merely metaphorical, like "physical education is a subject where children express their understanding through action" or "I think I have this thing where everybody has to think I'm the greatest".

    And those are both wrong. The first one should be "physical education is a subject concerning/about/of which children express their understanding through action." The second should be "I think I have this thing which is that everybody has to think I'm the greatest."

    Thus, the only acceptable options would be "which", "that", or nothing (with an implied "that"). The difference between "that" and "which" indicates whether your desire for the thing to be correct is a defining characteristic of "one thing [that] you write" or that desire is only an added detail, respectively. Because correctness is the focus of discussion and not just supplementary information, "that" would probably be the best option to use.

    If it's merely added detail, it can by definition be left out without changing the basic meaning. "that's one thing you write." doesn't mean the same thing at all.

    That's what I said, and what you said before I did. I was agreeing with you concerning this point.

    I don't see how it could be a statement about the author. Can you explain that?

    The original said "where you want to be correct". You, the author of the cover letter, want to be correct in your work. If you change the "where" to "that"/"which", it means you want it, the cover letter, to be correct. Boils down to the same thing of course but as you want the letter to be correct exactly because it reflects on you and the way you work, it makes sense to emphasize the author.

    that's one thing you write where you really want to be as correct as possible.

    Nope. It's still bad grammar. If you want to focus on the author's being correct, as opposed to his work being correct, then you have to add another word:

    that's one thing you write of/about/concerning which you really want to be as correct as possible.


  • Considered Harmful

    @djls45 said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    There are lots of generally acceptable examples where location is merely metaphorical, like "physical education is a subject where children express their understanding through action" or "I think I have this thing where everybody has to think I'm the greatest".

    And those are both wrong. The first one should be "physical education is a subject concerning/about/of which children express their understanding through action." The second should be "I think I have this thing
    which is that everybody has to think I'm the greatest."

    A commenter here has dug up an example of this usage from Pride and Prejudice. So we have documented use of "where" in this sense for about 200 years not only in everyday speech but by writers like Roald Dahl and Jane Austen—good reason IMPO for Collins English Dictionary to declare: "It was formerly considered incorrect to use where as a substitute for in which after a noun which did not refer to a place or position, but this use has now become acceptable: we now have a situation where/in which no further action is needed"

    Nope. It's still bad grammar. If you want to focus on the author's being correct, as opposed to his work being correct, then you have to add another word:

    that's one thing you write of/about/concerning which you really want to be as correct as possible.

    "About" and "concerning", yes. But "one thing you write of which you really want to be as correct as possible"? :wtf:


  • kills Dumbledore

    @djls45 said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    physical education is a subject concerning/about/of which children express their understanding through action

    physical education is a subject concerning children express their understanding through action
    Gibberish

    physical education is a subject about children express their understanding through action
    Gibberish

    physical education is a subject of which children express their understanding through action
    Gibberish

    If you're going to pedant, at least do it right. All three of those are horrible mangling of grammar. You might be able to save the last one by changing it to "in which". The other two are sort of OK if you change express to expressing but that changes the meaning slightly



  • @Jaloopa said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @djls45 said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    physical education is a subject concerning/about/of which children express their understanding through action

    ...
    If you're going to pedant, at least do it right. All three of those are horrible mangling of grammar. You might be able to save the last one by changing it to "in which". The other two are sort of OK if you change express to expressing but that changes the meaning slightly

    If you're going to pedant my pedantry, at least parse better. (And maybe I could have written them better to avoid your objection.) ;)
    The slashes separate only the first word in the options. The word "which" should be included with all three:
    Physical education is a subject concerning which children express their understanding through action.
    Physical education is a subject about which children express their understanding through action.
    Physical education is a subject of which children express their understanding through action.

    Whether they're gibberish can be determined by isolating and rearranging the clauses to eliminate the relative pronoun:
    Physical education is a subject. Children express their understanding concerning it through action.
    Physical education is a subject. Children express their understanding about it through action.
    Physical education is a subject. Children express their understanding of it through action.

    This makes much less sense if the relative pronoun or relative pronoun phrase used is "in which":
    Physical education is a subject. Children express their understanding in it through action.

    Using "where" requires a total replacement and rephrasing of the relative pronoun to one of the above prepositional phrases, so while it may be sometimes stand in for "in which", it is poor usage in at least this case.


  • kills Dumbledore

    @djls45 that still means something different to the original sentence.

    physical education is a subject where children express their understanding through action

    to me means

    physical education is a subject. In physical education, children express their understanding through action

    In which, not Of which



  • @LaoC said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @djls45 said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    There are lots of generally acceptable examples where location is merely metaphorical, like "physical education is a subject where children express their understanding through action" or "I think I have this thing where everybody has to think I'm the greatest".

    And those are both wrong. The first one should be "physical education is a subject concerning/about/of which children express their understanding through action." The second should be "I think I have this thing which is that everybody has to think I'm the greatest."

    A commenter here has dug up an example of this usage from Pride and Prejudice. So we have documented use of "where" in this sense for about 200 years not only in everyday speech but by writers like Roald Dahl and Jane Austen—good reason IMPO for Collins English Dictionary to declare: "It was formerly considered incorrect to use where as a substitute for in which after a noun which did not refer to a place or position, but this use has now become acceptable: we now have a situation where/in which no further action is needed"

    Where did "in which" come from? "Where" works as a replacement for "in which" because the word "in" is a preposition that indicates location, at least metaphorically. And when was that replacement considered wrong?

    Nope. It's still bad grammar. If you want to focus on the author's being correct, as opposed to his work being correct, then you have to add another word:

    that's one thing you write of/about/concerning which you really want to be as correct as possible.

    "About" and "concerning", yes. But "one thing you write of which you really want to be as correct as possible"? :wtf:

    Isolate and rearrange the clauses, and you'll see that it makes sense, though "of" is not a commonly used phrasing:
    That's one thing you write. You really want to be as correct of it as possible.
    That's one thing you write. You really want to be as correct about it as possible.
    That's one thing you write. You really want to be as correct concerning it as possible.



  • @Jaloopa said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @djls45 that still means something different to the original sentence.

    physical education is a subject where children express their understanding through action

    to me means

    physical education is a subject. In physical education, children express their understanding through action

    In which, not Of which

    Which one makes more sense?
    Physical education is a subject. Children express their understanding in it through action.
    Physical education is a subject. Children express their understanding of it through action.

    If you think "of" makes more sense, then "in" and by extension "where" are bad choices for the relative clause.


  • kills Dumbledore

    @djls45 said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    Which one makes more sense?

    Depends what you're trying to say, since both are different sentences with different meanings.

    This is what happens when people try to apply strict prescriptivist rules to language. It doesn't matter what your rule book says or how you twist them around, the original sentence is commonly understood to mean in which, therefore that's what it means. Language is primarily a tool for communicating meaning, so the generally understood meaning is the "true" meaning of a sentence



  • @Jaloopa said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    Depends what you're trying to say, since both are different sentences with different meanings.

    So what is "understanding in a subject"?
    I contend that it is meaningless, or at best that it would be taken to mean "understanding of a subject". But if something is meant, then that's what should be said, pedantically speaking.


  • kills Dumbledore

    @djls45 Subject in this context is "set of lessons attended at school". In PE lessons, children do all that shit that's mentioned in the original


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @djls45 said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    If you're going to pedant my pedantry, at least parse better. (And maybe I could have written them better to avoid your objection.)
    The slashes separate only the first word in the options. The word "which" should be included with all three:
    Physical education is a subject concerning which children express their understanding through action.
    Physical education is a subject about which children express their understanding through action.
    Physical education is a subject of which children express their understanding through action.

    Gah! I've stayed out of this thread because it's boring but now I'm angry

    Physical education is a subject concerning children expressing their understanding through action.
    Physical education is a subject about children expressing their...
    Physical education is a subject about children expressing their...

    What you wrote might be grammatically correct but i'ts shit writing.



  • @boomzilla You've changed the meaning of the sentences to something different than the original. @Jaloopa already mentioned that option, though.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @djls45 I don't think the meaning is different.


  • Considered Harmful

    @djls45 said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    A commenter here has dug up an example of this usage from Pride and Prejudice. So we have documented use of "where" in this sense for about 200 years not only in everyday speech but by writers like Roald Dahl and Jane Austen—good reason IMPO for Collins English Dictionary to declare: "It was formerly considered incorrect to use where as a substitute for in which after a noun which did not refer to a place or position, but this use has now become acceptable: we now have a situation where/in which no further action is needed"

    Where did "in which" come from? "Where" works as a replacement for "in which" because the word "in" is a preposition that indicates location, at least metaphorically. And when was that replacement considered wrong?

    Of course it's metaphorical, that's what I wrote yesterday. If "a situation" can be considered a location, certainly "one thing you write" is a location, too. And "one thing you write in which you really want to be as correct as possible" is definitely closer to the intended meaning than "one thing you write which you really want to be as correct as possible".

    Isolate and rearrange the clauses, and you'll see that it makes sense, though "of" is not a commonly used phrasing:
    That's one thing you write. You really want to be as correct of it as possible.
    That's one thing you write. You really want to be as correct about it as possible.
    That's one thing you write. You really want to be as correct concerning it as possible.

    I've yet to find a single quote that would convince me "correct of" isn't completely wrong. The British National Corpus has five occurrences of the string in a hundred million running word forms but none of them are in the same sense. I don't have an AE corpus to search but Google isn't very convincing either.



  • @boomzilla said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @djls45 I don't think the meaning is different.

    Physical education is a subject about which children express their understanding through action.
    vs
    Physical education is a subject about children expressing their understanding through action.

    How does "subject" relate to the rest of the sentence in each one?
    The difference is that, in the first sentence, the children understand the subject, but in the second, the subject is the fact that children happen to be understanding something.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @djls45 Oh, I was comparing to the original statement by @LaoC, not all of the noise that came after where, yes, I agree that you mangled the meaning. Like I said: BOOOORRRRINNNNNGGGGG



  • @LaoC said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @djls45 said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    A commenter here has dug up an example of this usage from Pride and Prejudice. So we have documented use of "where" in this sense for about 200 years not only in everyday speech but by writers like Roald Dahl and Jane Austen—good reason IMPO for Collins English Dictionary to declare: "It was formerly considered incorrect to use where as a substitute for in which after a noun which did not refer to a place or position, but this use has now become acceptable: we now have a situation where/in which no further action is needed"

    Where did "in which" come from? "Where" works as a replacement for "in which" because the word "in" is a preposition that indicates location, at least metaphorically. And when was that replacement considered wrong?

    Of course it's metaphorical, that's what I wrote yesterday. If "a situation" can be considered a location, certainly "one thing you write" is a location, too. And "one thing you write in which you really want to be as correct as possible" is definitely closer to the intended meaning than "one thing you write which you really want to be as correct as possible".

    Does the original encourage writers to make sure their writing is correct or the contents of their writing? If it's referring to their writing being correct, then the spelling, grammar, document layout, etc. are the focus. But if it refers to the contents being correct, then the focus is whether all the details, facts, and arguments that are related within the document are true and valid.

    Isolate and rearrange the clauses, and you'll see that it makes sense, though "of" is not a commonly used phrasing:
    That's one thing you write. You really want to be as correct of it as possible.
    That's one thing you write. You really want to be as correct about it as possible.
    That's one thing you write. You really want to be as correct concerning it as possible.

    I've yet to find a single quote that would convince me "correct of" isn't completely wrong. The British National Corpus has five occurrences of the string in a hundred million running word forms but none of them are in the same sense. I don't have an AE corpus to search but Google isn't very convincing either.

    And this is the neat thing about rules of grammar: new sentences can be created that are intelligible. If you're dividing the sentence into phrases, each word in "correct of" would fall into different ones.



  • @boomzilla as thread creator I have to agree. @djls45, unless you start pendanting in a funnier way, I am going to have to ask you to shut up.

    0_1497031404891_IMG_0404.JPG



  • @Mikael_Svahnberg said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @djls45 said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @RaceProUK said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @Arantor said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @Jaloopa said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @Mikael_Svahnberg
    0_1496835812020_9a4e2fbe-a4f9-4d87-a00a-a7060063de24-image.png
    A red vs blue :pendant: thread?

    Please keep politics discussions safely in the Garage.

    He might be talking about http://www.roosterteeth.com/show/red-vs-blue 😜

    Fun as that may be, the alt attribute on the img tag indicates that he simply meant "meta".

    This is a [meta] [pedant]-thread.

    There is a surprising lack of symbols for "meta", so I just went with the first GIS hit. I figured that if someone recognised the symbol, I would just appear savvy. To what, I have no idea. :caughtwithmypantsdown:


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Mikael_Svahnberg said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @boomzilla as thread creator I have to agree. @djls45, unless you start pendanting in a funnier way, I am going to have to ask you to shut up.

    If he agrees to sit on his head would it be OK for him to continue since then he'd have to shut down to close his yap?

    :pendant:



  • @anotherusername said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @Mikael_Svahnberg said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @djls45 said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @RaceProUK said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @Arantor said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @Jaloopa said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @Mikael_Svahnberg
    0_1496835812020_9a4e2fbe-a4f9-4d87-a00a-a7060063de24-image.png
    A red vs blue :pendant: thread?

    Please keep politics discussions safely in the Garage.

    He might be talking about http://www.roosterteeth.com/show/red-vs-blue 😜

    Fun as that may be, the alt attribute on the img tag indicates that he simply meant "meta".

    This is a [meta] [pedant]-thread.

    There is a surprising lack of symbols for "meta", so I just went with the first GIS hit. I figured that if someone recognised the symbol, I would just appear savvy. To what, I have no idea. :caughtwithmypantsdown:

    Too easy. Besides I would sonner go with ♦ in that case (actually, an open diamond, but I'm on mobile so I CBA to figure out how to type that).


  • ♿ (Parody)

    0_1497059004835_cfd50ab1-798e-4f77-a3d8-d90290f991d4-image.png


  • Considered Harmful

    @djls45 said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    Does the original encourage writers to make sure their writing is correct or the contents of their writing? If it's referring to their writing being correct, then the spelling, grammar, document layout, etc. are the focus. But if it refers to the contents being correct, then the focus is whether all the details, facts, and arguments that are related within the document are true and valid.

    This is about what the original said, not what you think it ought to say.

    I've yet to find a single quote that would convince me "correct of" isn't completely wrong. The British National Corpus has five occurrences of the string in a hundred million running word forms but none of them are in the same sense. I don't have an AE corpus to search but Google isn't very convincing either.

    And this is the neat thing about rules of grammar: new sentences can be created that are intelligible.

    WTF are you crapping on around?

    See, you understood that, although the preposition is plain wrong. The infinity of possible grammatical sentences has nothing to do with inventing your own grammatical rules. A statement can be "correct of" something, people can't.

    If you're dividing the sentence into phrases, each word in "correct of" would fall into different ones.

    So what? The collocate preposition usually does, which doesn't change the fact that verbs or adjectives demand specific prepositions that often depend on other phrases.

    BTW:
    "If you divide … each word falls" or
    "If you divided … each word would fall" or maybe, although that's probably not what you want to say,
    "When you're dividing … each word falls"

    If you're writing shit like that in your cover letter for a position as an editor:pendant:-in-chief, you wouldn't be accepted ;)


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @LaoC He appears to be doing a short-cut for “If you are doing PRECONDITION ACTION PHRASE, then you would find that CONSEQUENT ACTION PHRASE is true/occurs”. I find that a clumsy construction, especially with the use of “ones”, but it is at least comprehensible.



  • Have we reached the philosophical suicide of grammar yet?


  • Considered Harmful

    @dkf said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @LaoC He appears to be doing a short-cut for “If you are doing PRECONDITION ACTION PHRASE, then you would find that CONSEQUENT ACTION PHRASE is true/occurs”. I find that a clumsy construction, especially with the use of “ones”, but it is at least comprehensible.

    I wouldn't mind the "ones"; it has a clear referent as there is only one plural, "phrases". Thing is, you will find that if you do divide it, or if you did divide it, you would find that. Mixing realis and potentialis makes it clumsy, plus the present participle unnecessarily emphasizes the ongoing action—"if you should be engaged in the act of dividing it". That's fine in something like "if you're driving drunk, you can cause an accident" but here the action is not the point. 👑 :pendant: :p


  • ♿ (Parody)



  • "a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules"....

    What is minor to one, may be critical to another; what is perceived as excessive may not even be sufficient.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @boomzilla The point where it gets really bad is when they are forced to switch to calling “espresso” a less common variant of “expresso”…




  • ♿ (Parody)

    @dragoon said in Universal income:

    Mistakes are things that you could of avoided had you payed more attention.

    Nice demonstration.


  • ♿ (Parody)



  • @boomzilla Thankfully, it's a lot easier to fix "times up" than "no regerts" on a tattoo.


  • Notification Spam Recipient

    @izzion said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @royal_poet
    Welcome! Your rubber room is down the hall, third door on the right. But at least it has 🍪🍪

    (And I'm not sure if it's better or worse that the Emoji One cookies no longer have a bite taken out of them)

    You know what? At first I thought they were those open seed pods that were almost viral a few years ago.

    Unsee that!



  • @ben_lubar said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @boomzilla Thankfully, it's a lot easier to fix "times up" than "no regerts" on a tattoo.

    I've heard of someone deliberately getting a "no regerts" tattoo after that commercial.


  • ♿ (Parody)


  • Considered Harmful

    @coderpatsy said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @ben_lubar said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    @boomzilla Thankfully, it's a lot easier to fix "times up" than "no regerts" on a tattoo.

    I've heard of someone deliberately getting a "no regerts" tattoo after that commercial.

    0_1520884327997_05f28e39-fcdb-4b08-889c-66af3f33f68e-image.png


  • kills Dumbledore

    @tsaukpaetra said in Why do pedants pedant?:

    Unsee that!

    Easy enough since I don't know what you're talking about


Log in to reply