Upload
Login or register

bambambaby

Last status update:
-
Gender: female
Age: 23
Date Signed Up:3/29/2011
Last Login:5/22/2013
Stats
Content Thumbs: 6715 total,  7874 ,  1159
Comment Thumbs: 9571 total,  13251 ,  3680
Content Level Progress: 13% (13/100)
Level 167 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 168 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Comment Level Progress: 64% (64/100)
Level 295 Comments: Post Master → Level 296 Comments: Post Master
Subscribers:9
Content Views:206250
Times Content Favorited:291 times
Total Comments Made:2916
FJ Points:16410
Favorite Tags: i love you (2)

latest user's comments

#84 - As I just stated, it was added after people used it incorrectly.  [+] (3 replies) 01/05/2013 on literally -3
User avatar
#86 - coolcalx (01/05/2013) [-]
so what the hell is your point? like I said, the English language is constantly changing. it adapts to the times. just because the ORIGINAL definition isn't the only one doesn't mean that the new one is incorrect.

the word "gay" means happy, and it also means homosexual. neither of these definitions is more incorrect than the other, it just requires context so you can figure it out.
User avatar
#87 - bambambaby (01/05/2013) [-]
It sounded like you were pointing out ONE definition of the word. That's my point.
User avatar
#90 - coolcalx (01/05/2013) [-]
no. all I said was that it's grammatically correct to use "literally" in a hyperbolic sense. you claimed I was wrong, and used biased evidence to support your argument. all I did was provide the rest of the information which you happened to neglect.
#77 - Yes, but there's more definitions saying without exaggeration …  [+] (2 replies) 01/05/2013 on literally -4
#80 - coolcalx (01/05/2013) [-]
*sigh*
no.
there is more than one definition, because the word can be used in more than one way. your little 'ratio' of virtual:non exaggerated is non sequitor. it has nothing to do with anything.
User avatar
#81 - coolcalx (01/05/2013) [-]
the English language isn't a fixed thing. it's constantly changing.
#73 - It says in plain words, "actually, without exag…  [+] (9 replies) 01/05/2013 on literally -5
User avatar
#75 - coolcalx (01/05/2013) [-]
you realize that there's more than one definition there, right?
4. in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually.
User avatar
#77 - bambambaby (01/05/2013) [-]
Yes, but there's more definitions saying without exaggeration as opposed to ONE definition that says "virtually". Which I'm sure was placed only after so many people used it incorrectly.
#80 - coolcalx (01/05/2013) [-]
*sigh*
no.
there is more than one definition, because the word can be used in more than one way. your little 'ratio' of virtual:non exaggerated is non sequitor. it has nothing to do with anything.
User avatar
#81 - coolcalx (01/05/2013) [-]
the English language isn't a fixed thing. it's constantly changing.
User avatar
#76 - coolcalx (01/05/2013) [-]
also notice the usage notes

Since the early 20th century, literally has been widely used as an intensifier meaning “in effect, virtually,” a sense that contradicts the earlier meaning “actually, without exaggeration”:
User avatar
#84 - bambambaby (01/05/2013) [-]
As I just stated, it was added after people used it incorrectly.
User avatar
#86 - coolcalx (01/05/2013) [-]
so what the hell is your point? like I said, the English language is constantly changing. it adapts to the times. just because the ORIGINAL definition isn't the only one doesn't mean that the new one is incorrect.

the word "gay" means happy, and it also means homosexual. neither of these definitions is more incorrect than the other, it just requires context so you can figure it out.
User avatar
#87 - bambambaby (01/05/2013) [-]
It sounded like you were pointing out ONE definition of the word. That's my point.
User avatar
#90 - coolcalx (01/05/2013) [-]
no. all I said was that it's grammatically correct to use "literally" in a hyperbolic sense. you claimed I was wrong, and used biased evidence to support your argument. all I did was provide the rest of the information which you happened to neglect.
#69 - To say "literally", means that it actually happened.…  [+] (12 replies) 01/05/2013 on literally -5
User avatar
#117 - buttgauges (01/05/2013) [-]
dumb ass bitch
User avatar
#70 - coolcalx (01/05/2013) [-]
nope. in fact, I've already provided proof in this very comment thread. why don't you take a look at the links and definitions I already posted?

it is grammatically correct to use the word "literally" in a hyperbolic sense
User avatar
#73 - bambambaby (01/05/2013) [-]
dictionary.reference.com/browse/literally

It says in plain words, "actually, without exaggeration".
User avatar
#75 - coolcalx (01/05/2013) [-]
you realize that there's more than one definition there, right?
4. in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually.
User avatar
#77 - bambambaby (01/05/2013) [-]
Yes, but there's more definitions saying without exaggeration as opposed to ONE definition that says "virtually". Which I'm sure was placed only after so many people used it incorrectly.
#80 - coolcalx (01/05/2013) [-]
*sigh*
no.
there is more than one definition, because the word can be used in more than one way. your little 'ratio' of virtual:non exaggerated is non sequitor. it has nothing to do with anything.
User avatar
#81 - coolcalx (01/05/2013) [-]
the English language isn't a fixed thing. it's constantly changing.
User avatar
#76 - coolcalx (01/05/2013) [-]
also notice the usage notes

Since the early 20th century, literally has been widely used as an intensifier meaning “in effect, virtually,” a sense that contradicts the earlier meaning “actually, without exaggeration”:
User avatar
#84 - bambambaby (01/05/2013) [-]
As I just stated, it was added after people used it incorrectly.
User avatar
#86 - coolcalx (01/05/2013) [-]
so what the hell is your point? like I said, the English language is constantly changing. it adapts to the times. just because the ORIGINAL definition isn't the only one doesn't mean that the new one is incorrect.

the word "gay" means happy, and it also means homosexual. neither of these definitions is more incorrect than the other, it just requires context so you can figure it out.
User avatar
#87 - bambambaby (01/05/2013) [-]
It sounded like you were pointing out ONE definition of the word. That's my point.
User avatar
#90 - coolcalx (01/05/2013) [-]
no. all I said was that it's grammatically correct to use "literally" in a hyperbolic sense. you claimed I was wrong, and used biased evidence to support your argument. all I did was provide the rest of the information which you happened to neglect.
#19 - This was.... A long ass time ago.  [+] (2 replies) 01/02/2013 on Insecure Content 0
User avatar
#21 - bionicpanda (01/07/2014) [-]
it was a long time ago, wasn't it?
User avatar
#20 - bionicpanda (01/02/2013) [-]
i know lol.

I was looking through my old content, but when i posted this i wasn't a brony and didn't understand your comment but now looking back on this now it made me lol
#95 - I work there as well, and I am not a pothead.  [+] (4 replies) 01/01/2013 on nigga this a title +1
#99 - JohnTheRipper (01/01/2013) [-]
im part of the roofing and siding master-race.









Get on my level
#114 - anon (01/01/2013) [-]
Funny.... I know a guy who is in roofing because they were the only ones who would hire him after being in jail twice for possession with intent to sell.
User avatar
#115 - JohnTheRipper (01/01/2013) [-]
yeah I worked with a guy like that. He fell off a roof onto an aircompressor and got fucked up. havent seen him since.
#119 - anon (01/01/2013) [-]
I know one whose never done drugs once in his life who had an on the job accident that caused him to retire, too.


I know a lot of roofers, it's pretty much keeping the next town over alive.