/jp/ - Otaku Culture

Let's not.

>>5036006


I would of normally not responded to this thread. But the inner grammar-natzi in me sees that that sentence made no sense.

>>5036039
>would of
>natzi

>>5036039
>inner
>sees

>>5036039
How? Let's not means let us not, as in let us not post in this thread or see the ever elusive Beatoraffe.

And with that I'm out of here.

THOSE CHOKERS

>>5036039
>that sentence made no sense

>>5036039
>natzi

>>5036070

But the OP never invited us to see the ever elusive Beatoraffe. The OP just said "There it is." You can't reply to that with "Let's not." because there was no invitation to do anything!

>>5036108

I don't think he was particularly interested in the context. Like, if someone knocked on your door and you opened it and they said something completely random and stupid you just close the door and say "Let's not." See, you don't even put forth the effort to listen and understand- you simply shut them up with cold indifference, not even bothering to comprehend.

>>5036142

Why are you so dead set on defending him? The reply made no sense. It'd be like if someone asked you what 2+2 was and you replied "Blue." It's nothing but stupidity; he made a mistake. He has a poor understand of English.

There is no "cold indifference" just like a retarded kid doesn't display "cold indifference" when you ask him to recite PI to the tenth place and he just stares at you with a blank face- he's just retarded!

>>5036182
>poor understand of English

>>5036039
You're sentense makes no sence.

>>5036182

I'm defending him because he's my client. And I will say it again: he was not acting in an idiotic fashion. Using the phrase "Let's not." was completely intentional and not a result of lacking knowledge of English grammar.

It was supposed to be a humorous remark, because of the incongruity of the OP's post with my client's remark. The fact that my client simply dismissed the opening post with "Let's not." and not a rational remark creates humor and gives my client an air of indifference, thus resulting in a casual insult of the opening post.

You fags will argue over anything. How empty your life must be to be reduced to wasting your time this way?

>>5035995
H t t P :/ / À T . k í M m o á . 5 e /

>>5036255
Perhaps the same could be said of all religions

>>5036255
>be
>way
lrn2english

I bet OP is the one who replied with "Let's not" in the first place.

>>5036291
You would lose that bet.

-The "Let's not." guy

>>5036302
I dont

>>5036302
Damn

>>5036319
Oh fuck you

>>5036234

Your client simply rushed to reply to a disagreeable post and neglected to actually make some sense. You are defending your client in retrospect, analyzing everything to add sense and meaning when in fact there was none. You are looking too far into it. It was just a dumb remark and nothing more, not intentionally humorous or clever. I doubt anyone found it amusing , helpful, or entertaining in the least, with the exception of your client.

>>5036362
>>5036234
First murders and now semantics/grammar.

You two sure have fallen low.

>>5036362

How do you know my client rushed? Maybe my client really did take his time to come up with a suitably clever response? Maybe YOU are the one who is rushing in arriving at the conclusion that my client is an idiot?

>>5036463

Umm, you are aware that this website tracks the exact time that you posted, right? If we compare the times:

Opening post: 22:03
Your client's post: 22:04

As you can see there is a difference of one minute and thus, I doubt your client is as smart and "coldly indifferent" as you paint him out to be. Your client did indeed rush with a stupid, senseless remark.