>>14285863I didn't start the new thread.
In case you didn't realise, I was just ribbing on the absurdly ridiculous vagueness of
>>14285810, to the point where a person would actually have to ask what's wrong to get any information in a follow up reply.
Kind of like those "FML" Facebook posts teenaage girls leave when they're sad because the hex value of their lipstick is off by a single digit, expecting everyone to comfort and support them with no additional information.
But I thought you, who lives in a world where a three letter post can contain as much information as this one, would have already got that by now.
Sorry.
