(Topic ID: 276266)

Look who's back!

By arcademrs

1 year ago


Topic Heartbeat

Topic Stats

  • 33 posts
  • 24 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 1 year ago by RCA1
  • Topic is favorited by 2 Pinsiders

You

Linked Games

No games have been linked to this topic.

    Topic Gallery

    View topic image gallery

    lookwhoseback (resized).jpg
    E1743B9F-870A-475E-BCB5-13E4E5566B77 (resized).jpeg
    2BACF936-E39E-4ACB-9454-77469FEBBC83 (resized).jpeg

    #1 1 year ago

    Maybe we could pay you NOT to podcast.

    23
    #2 1 year ago

    I clicked thinking O-din was back.

    #3 1 year ago
    Quoted from arcademrs:

    Maybe we could pay you NOT to podcast.

    Wow he must live in your head, lol

    #4 1 year ago
    Quoted from JohnnyPinball007:

    I clicked thinking O-din was back.

    Me three

    #5 1 year ago

    Plus one on O-din

    #6 1 year ago

    Me too

    #7 1 year ago
    Quoted from JohnnyPinball007:

    I clicked thinking O-din was back.

    Same. Bummed he is not

    11
    #8 1 year ago
    2BACF936-E39E-4ACB-9454-77469FEBBC83 (resized).jpeg
    #10 1 year ago
    Quoted from arcademrs:

    Maybe we could pay you NOT to podcast.

    I'm the only one paying people NOT to podcast

    #11 1 year ago

    Who’s back? Doesn’t really say in any of the posts. I was hoping for O-din , he is one of the people from pinside that I’d like to hang out with but haven’t gotten the chance yet.

    #12 1 year ago

    Exactly....it's "Whom's back" for fuck sakes.

    #13 1 year ago
    Quoted from TheLaw:

    Exactly....it's "Whom's back" for fuck sakes.

    Is it fuck sakes or fuck’s sake. I always say it the latter but really don’t know which is correct. I’ve heard it both ways

    13
    #14 1 year ago
    Quoted from TheLaw:

    Exactly....it's "Whom's back" for fuck sakes.

    Negatory. Who is a subject, whom is an object. Who is back? is grammatically correct because who is the subject of the sentence. You would use whom for things like, "This is for whom?" or "To whom am I speaking?"

    And it would be "for Fuck's sake." FYI It is Fuck whose sake we are bemoaning.

    #15 1 year ago
    Quoted from fireball2:

    Negatory. Who is a subject, whom is an object. Who is back? is grammatically correct because who is the subject of the sentence. You would use whom for things like, "This is for whom?" or "To whom am I speaking?"
    And it would be "for Fuck's sake." FYI It is Fuck whose sake we are bemoaning.

    Wow. Both points are 100% grammatically correct here. Well done sir.

    #16 1 year ago
    Quoted from fireball2:

    Who is a subject, whom is an object....

    You fucking people....8 years it never changes.

    #17 1 year ago

    Thanks Mang! I've taught English for over 30 years and went to 12 years of Catholic school to boot. I could diagram a sentence even three sheets to the wind... like the nuns I learned from.

    #18 1 year ago
    Quoted from TheLaw:

    You fucking people....8 years it never changes.

    Oh stop. I can be as crabby as you, Cowboy, and I don't usually go there. But if'n people want to, I'ma go toe to toe with anyone in a grammar way. I can make 7th graders care about grammar!
    Relax. You'll live longer.

    #19 1 year ago

    Guess who's back, back again
    Shady's back, tell a friend
    Guess who's back, guess who's back?
    Guess who's back, guess who's back?
    Guess who's back, guess who's back?
    Guess who's back?

    E1743B9F-870A-475E-BCB5-13E4E5566B77 (resized).jpeg
    #20 1 year ago
    Quoted from TheLaw:

    You fucking people....8 years it never changes.

    I have to admit I’m a little confused, do you have some sort of running joke going with using “whom” incorrectly? I’ve noticed you doing it but never really cared enough to call you out on it. Just figured it was your thing, kind of like making bird noises is my thing.

    #21 1 year ago
    Quoted from fireball2:

    Negatory. Who is a subject, whom is an object. Who is back? is grammatically correct because who is the subject of the sentence. You would use whom for things like, "This is for whom?" or "To whom am I speaking?"
    And it would be "for Fuck's sake." FYI It is Fuck whose sake we are bemoaning.

    I have always had confusion on when to use “farther” and “further”...could you please provide the correct gramner rules on their use?

    #22 1 year ago

    This ain’t a damn grammar class. It’s fucking macho!

    #23 1 year ago

    Who's back? It's not o-din or Vid so it must be the K Man?

    #24 1 year ago

    Who(m) is back? And what happened to O-din? I may have Rip Van Winkled through all the excitement.

    #25 1 year ago
    Quoted from Who-Dey:

    Who's back? It's not o-din or Vid so it must be the K Man?

    Could someone please explain why vid stopped posting here? Thanks

    #26 1 year ago
    Quoted from scampcamp:

    Could someone please explain why vid stopped posting here? Thanks

    Newbs arguing playfield material/density.

    #27 1 year ago
    Quoted from scampcamp:

    Could someone please explain why vid stopped posting here? Thanks

    He got tired of being wrong about stern playfield cratering (which is much different than "normal" minor dimpling). Then when his "secret" harassment/shill accounts got shut down for being naughty and breaking pinside TOS, he got the hint.

    #28 1 year ago

    Im back....but then again...i pretty much never leave, soo..........

    #29 1 year ago
    Quoted from TheLaw:

    Newbs arguing playfield material/density.

    Yep I agree. Wood is the same. The cc matters

    #30 1 year ago

    Back to this important issue, it depends how many fucks the sakes of which are in question.

    One fuck: for fuck's sake

    Multiple fucks: for fucks' sakes

    The shorthand FFS is especially useful, in that the reader can fill in their preferred version in their mind, correctly punctuated or no, as is their wont.

    #31 1 year ago

    LOOK !! whose back ?

    lookwhoseback (resized).jpg
    #32 1 year ago

    I've no more fucks to give...... (look it up)

    #33 1 year ago

    It's almost like his absence was some sort of attention grab.
    Nah. That's not possible at all.

    Reply

    Wanna join the discussion? Please sign in to reply to this topic.

    Hey there! Welcome to Pinside!

    Donate to Pinside

    Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run without any 3rd-party banners or ads, thanks to the support from our visitors? Please consider a donation to Pinside and get anext to your username to show for it! Or better yet, become a Pinside+ member!