I utterly detest the use of “wholeheartedly agree” when people have caveats. It truly goes against the concept of wholeheartedness. It is sufficient to indicate that you agree completely and then be silent. That you don’t suggests your caveat has more value and meaning to you than the point you are ‘wholeheartedly’ agreeing with.
You are either being willfully obtuse or are actively a troll. Either way, we’ve all already used up more metabolism on you than is worthwhile. If you cannot bother to be informed about something as easy to know as this, and yet spout off multiple replies to defend your position, then you’re not here in good faith.
I said I “wholeheartedly agree” with “it being on me” that I haven’t seen something. Obviously. How can it not? Is it on you? No. You’re being so incredibly stupid and prejudiced that it’s hard to fathom. Now fuck off, you’re right about wasting metabolism
I utterly detest the use of “wholeheartedly agree” when people have caveats. It truly goes against the concept of wholeheartedness. It is sufficient to indicate that you agree completely and then be silent. That you don’t suggests your caveat has more value and meaning to you than the point you are ‘wholeheartedly’ agreeing with.
You are either being willfully obtuse or are actively a troll. Either way, we’ve all already used up more metabolism on you than is worthwhile. If you cannot bother to be informed about something as easy to know as this, and yet spout off multiple replies to defend your position, then you’re not here in good faith.
I said I “wholeheartedly agree” with “it being on me” that I haven’t seen something. Obviously. How can it not? Is it on you? No. You’re being so incredibly stupid and prejudiced that it’s hard to fathom. Now fuck off, you’re right about wasting metabolism