>>102286210Only one of those is me, though I mentioned those arguments because they're the same, the 2nd post is a continuation of the first one.
In any case, you admitted that, when asked how many Easter eggs you have found after searching for them and finding none, and I quote:
>>102286007>You would say you found noneSo you would say you found none. Again, and I repeat, you would *say* you found none. You would *say* it.
So, replace "Easter eggs" with "evidence of sexpesting", the above point becomes:
You admitted that, when asked how many *evidence of sexpesting* you have found after searching for them and finding none, and I quote:
>>102286007>You would say you found noneSo you would say you found none. Again, and I repeat, you would *say* you found none. You would *say* it.
As I said, you made my point for me, but you're too dumb to even understand that.
Btw in
>>102285410 you said
>What are your number of findings?and when I answered with a number, "0", you said I should have said "none", so you're doubly retarded for being inconsistent with your own damn example.
