Do you think I could just leave this part blank and it'd be okay? We're just going to replace the whole thing with a header image anyway, right?
You are not logged in.
Guess: Sentences cannot have words that contain two vowels separated by two consoants (e.g. one, square, ode)
RULEBREAKING
INCORRECT
Actually shouldn't it be: Posts cannot have words that contain two vowels separated by ONE consoants (e.g. one, square, ode)
my dude had a typo methinks
(btw i thought of this myself before i saw his post)
RULEBREAKING
CORRECT
:.|:;
Offline
Offline
quote
RULEBREAKING
Offline
realmaster42 wrote:Guess: Sentences cannot have words that contain two vowels separated by two consoants (e.g. one, square, ode)
RULEBREAKING
INCORRECT
Actually shouldn't it be: Posts cannot have words that contain two vowels separated by ONE consoants (e.g. one, square, ode)
my dude had a typo methinks
(btw i thought of this myself before i saw his post)
RULEBREAKING
CORRECT
HUMMERZ this is what I meant and I put it on the example how did you fail to understand that
Offline
HUMMERZ this is what I meant and I put it on the example how did you fail to understand that
normally I'm not so pedantic, but we took like fifteen posts in PM to hammer out exactly those sorts of differences so I figured I'd stay fast to that.
In contrast, I actually said Anak was right about the first rule when in fact I meant it was something else. So I'm trying to be more exacting.
Offline
realmaster42 wrote:HUMMERZ this is what I meant and I put it on the example how did you fail to understand that
normally I'm not so pedantic, but we took like fifteen posts in PM to hammer out exactly those sorts of differences so I figured I'd stay fast to that.
In contrast, I actually said Anak was right about the first rule when in fact I meant it was something else. So I'm trying to be more exacting.
but in my post I put the example
Offline
(sorry for double post, couldn't edit): Tbh meh, it's fine. At least it seems like I'm getting the hang of this
Offline
hummerz5 wrote:realmaster42 wrote:HUMMERZ this is what I meant and I put it on the example how did you fail to understand that
normally I'm not so pedantic, but we took like fifteen posts in PM to hammer out exactly those sorts of differences so I figured I'd stay fast to that.
In contrast, I actually said Anak was right about the first rule when in fact I meant it was something else. So I'm trying to be more exacting.
but in my post I put the example
sorry, but this is how it is. I can't decide based on examples, naturally.
also fwiw, regex came in quite handy for this one
Offline
realmaster42 wrote:hummerz5 wrote:realmaster42 wrote:HUMMERZ this is what I meant and I put it on the example how did you fail to understand that
normally I'm not so pedantic, but we took like fifteen posts in PM to hammer out exactly those sorts of differences so I figured I'd stay fast to that.
In contrast, I actually said Anak was right about the first rule when in fact I meant it was something else. So I'm trying to be more exacting.
but in my post I put the example
sorry, but this is how it is. I can't decide based on examples, naturally.
also fwiw, regex came in quite handy for this one
wait wait but there wase someone who said one and ddidnt break rule lemme check
thanks hg for making this much better and ty for my avatar aswell
Offline
Offline
Offline
Offline
123
Offline
Offline
[ Started around 1732547174.1752 - Generated in 0.091 seconds, 12 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.8 MiB (Peak: 2.07 MiB) ]