case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2016-01-13 06:37 pm

[ SECRET POST #3297 ]


⌈ Secret Post #3297 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 030 secrets from Secret Submission Post #471.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

(Anonymous) 2016-01-14 05:47 am (UTC)(link)
da

Reblogging passes on the original post, so it keeps its attribution - if you reblog something I've posted, it's still credited to me, and someone looking for more of the same can follow the chain back to find more of my work.

Reposting something starts a new chain, with you as the originator, so it divorces the content from the person who actually generated it. It's not bad if you credit the content, but a lot of people don't bother to.
tabaqui: (Default)

[personal profile] tabaqui 2016-01-14 06:05 am (UTC)(link)
Thanks. I've never considered the words with the extra definition of 'has source'/'does not have source' - the idea of using those words to differentiate that has never once crossed my mind.