[ SECRET POST #7071 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #7071 ⌋

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


01.




__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 43 secrets from Secret Submission Post #1010.
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

[(Anonymous)]

... I'm willing to bet he knew more about animals than you OP

[(Anonymous)]

Not the OP but where in the secret does the OP say anything about his knowledge of animals?

DA

[(Anonymous)]

"I don't think Steve Irwin was good to animals. He didn't respect animals"

If OP has more knowledge of animals than Steve Irwin did, then they can say exactly how he wasn't good to animals and didn't respect them. Because I've never heard animal experts or conservationists say a negative word about him. Which says way more to me about his handling of animals than some rando who knows jack shit and just thinks it looks wrong.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

You are weirdly hostile and aggressive about this. You are also either projecting or assuming a lot about OP with absolutely nothing to go on. Maybe sit back a moment and reflect why this has touched a nerve.

DA

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

No...I'm just stating facts....You want me to believe that a rando on the internet who doesn't like it more than experts who have said nothing against it? You want me to take medical advice from dr google, too?

My "nerve" is less touched by OP than by the comment that shows an utter lack of reading comprehension that OP never said anything about knowing more than Steve Irwin. Yes, it SEVERELY implied that. I'm sick to fucking death of people not understanding how language works.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

Nah, I know plenty of people who know a LOT about animals and are not good to them. Thinking someone was not "good to animals" does not "SEVERELY imply" that person doesn't know about animals and it certainly doesn't imply that the OP thinks they know more than he did either.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

JFC, you did it again. Thinking that someone (who handles animals for a living, in public, on international tv, open to the scrutiny of all the experts) is not good to animals SEVERELY IMPLIES that the person who thinks that also thinks they know more about animals that the guy on tv. That is someone who thinks that they know more about animals than the experts who, if they thought something was wrong, would have said something.

Please. I am begging you. Learn how to read the logistical implications of a statement.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

Say, is "you're too sensitive" (or some variation of which) combined with a weak application of buzzwords the new troll tactic now? Just wondering.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, OP did imply they know enough to give such a negative opinion of the man. So you gotta figure they're in some way informed about handling wild animals. But if they're saying it because of vibes, then I can see why people are critical of their opinion.