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
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.