Clockwork wrote:DezNutz wrote:Clockwork wrote:I believe your concern should be aimed at the lot lizard in your family that knows about a little boys size than somebody who has no adequate context clue within the previous statement indicating seeing said ****.
You use this word context.
I don't think it means what you think it means.
There was no reasonable indication for the response you gave.
I know what it means. Your trolling needs improvement
someone may take him serious when he gets his own crib, doesn't hit and threaten women who provide for him, and quit taking food out of the mouth of handicapped people



Clockwork wrote:AB didn’t call him a little ****. AB called him Little ****, indicating a name, not an object. Hence AB knows about a little **** that Leo may have. Cmon PG lawyer get it together.
Your argument is invalid.
Lolita X wrote:Yeah I think the only person here who misunderstood the assignment was CW once again. I thought AB was referring to Leo being a little sh*t. Not his actual little winky. Am I right in that assumption?
DezNutz wrote:Lolita X wrote:Yeah I think the only person here who misunderstood the assignment was CW once again. I thought AB was referring to Leo being a little sh*t. Not his actual little winky. Am I right in that assumption?
Yes that would be correct.
CW's response changed the implication.