[ SECRET POST #6421 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6421 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 40 secrets from Secret Submission Post #918.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Vent thread

[(Anonymous)]

I also haven’t liked some of her most recent recaps as much. Sometimes they seem overly nitpicking.

Re: Vent thread

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Having continued to read after making this comment, beyond being overly nitpicky, I think she either doesn't understand how certain turns of phrase are supposed to work, or is acting as if she doesn't in order to find more things to criticize.

I am now reading a post in which she takes issue with the construction, "it's all intact, save for this part." She rants about how if one part isn't intact, then "that's not all, is it, dipshit?" yes, Jenny, it's not literally "all," and that's what the save for is for. The sentence means, "everything except for this bit was intact." That's not a contradictory statement.

This woman worked as an editor and is herself a writer. How does she not understand the use of "save for?"