[ SECRET POST #2861 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2861 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 052 secrets from Secret Submission Post #409.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

SECRETS, you asshole.

SECRETS.

Learn to fucking read the shit you're replying to and the shit you're copying and pasting, you malicious half-wit.

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

And they were weblinking to an actual secret. Seriously, it was the first thing they put in the comment field. So, techincally, it was a secrets thread.

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

Except the spoiler wasn't in the secret, and the warning specifically says secrets may contain spoilers. Not secret threads. Not threads in GC that reference secrets. The secrets themselves.

Stop trying to twist shit to mean something else.

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

Yes it is inconvenient to your argument when people calmly state the facts. Got it.

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, let's look at the facts:

-the warning applies to the content of secrets
-the secret in question contains no spoilers

Whose argument is being inconvenienced, here?

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[the_missing_y]

I dunno, that seems a tad pedantic. I mean yes, the literal word is secret, but I always took the spirit of it is "Fandom Secrets is not a safe place to be if you care about spoilers."

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

+1

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

why wont you die?

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

The fuck is wrong with you?

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

Dude, not cool.

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

It's pedantic to read things the way they're written?

If I say, "warning: this room is the bathroom," then is it reasonable to conclude that the entire house is the bathroom?

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

This. I'm always prepared to happen upon spoilers and am ready to back out of a thread if I need to.