Edit | Leave a Comment | Favorite
User Comments:
Anonymous commented at 2010-12-10 07:26:31 » #539185
Yeah, this is the result of telling kids someone got out of an animal's intestines and DO mention there would most likely be blood all over them. The one whjo comes out of those intestines will most likely not be the only one who will be scarred for life.
1 Points Flag
Yeah, this is the result of telling kids someone got out of an animal's intestines and DO mention there would most likely be blood all over them. The one whjo comes out of those intestines will most likely not be the only one who will be scarred for life.
1 Points Flag
Anonymous commented at 2011-03-22 21:42:59 » #664165
@Anon 3
It would be "wolves'."
Wolfs is actually improper English, as it is a pluralization of wolf, which should be wolves.
Wolf's is possessive of a single wolf.
The apostrophe always always comes after the pluralizing s in a word's pluralization when dealing with a possessive form of multiples. Thus "wolves" being the pluralization of "wolf" would become "wolves'."I think that should be "wolfs'" not "wolf's", b/c it looks like she's been fucking a LOT of them up. Bitch don't mess around.
[end pendant rant]
4 Points Flag
@Anon 3
It would be "wolves'."
Wolfs is actually improper English, as it is a pluralization of wolf, which should be wolves.
Wolf's is possessive of a single wolf.
The apostrophe always always comes after the pluralizing s in a word's pluralization when dealing with a possessive form of multiples. Thus "wolves" being the pluralization of "wolf" would become "wolves'."I think that should be "wolfs'" not "wolf's", b/c it looks like she's been fucking a LOT of them up. Bitch don't mess around.
[end pendant rant]
4 Points Flag
captainsnake commented at 2013-06-12 23:22:58 » #1339538
I just want to know why the fuck would you want to know the under garment patterns. :/
1 Points Flag
I just want to know why the fuck would you want to know the under garment patterns. :/
1 Points Flag
1