Viewing Thread:
"Copularity Pontest"

1. Me
2. You

What do you think of the above people?

Put your review here about them people I mentioned above.

Flockhart wrote:
> Stop trying to be a intellectual with this existensialist(sp) crap.
> You = Bloody annoying
> Me = Bloody annoyed

The first answer that is correct!! Well to some extent, at no point did I mention that fact that Me and You where the names of Members.

Well done Flockhart your the first to see the topic in a different light!

Stop trying to be a intellectual with this existensialist(sp) crap.
You = Bloody annoying
Me = Bloody annoyed

Azul wrote:
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Azul wrote:
> Damn straight.
>
> Don't fool yourself, Zully.
>
> You always seem to swoop from nowhere when there's a potential sexual
> innuendo to be made.
> You're like Batman or something.
>
> ...

When the red phone rings, I have no choice.

I'm by no means a newbie, I'm a forum legend. Shaneo. :)

Der Nazi wrote:
> By God, it's a newbie attack.

And a Regular Defence

By God, it's a newbie attack.

It's a phrase I invented.

Azul wrote:
> P4NT$ wrote:
> Your case still remains to be seen
>
> That's because there is no case. I am merely pointing out that there
> are no known members "You" and "Me", therefore
> comment cannot be passed.
>
> the case in question here is the copularity
>
> There's no such word as "copularity", though.

So if the topic does not have a real name then how can the topic have real answers?

P4NT$ wrote:
> Your case still remains to be seen

That's because there is no case. I am merely pointing out that there are no known members "You" and "Me", therefore comment cannot be passed.

> the case in question here is the copularity

There's no such word as "copularity", though.

Zully. Meh.