It's on par with ponies thanks to those OC gems or w/e.

Im sure if I looked hard enough I could find it.

not to mention how much side boob you can see looking dead on at his seperated chest

or should I say chesticles

you knew that was going to be there

I feel like the people that 'sold' the land were just scamming the colonists and it didn't work out for them.

I think that is Gale, while Peta is dancing with Katniss.

I can't think of any other reason. I guess it's just not explained very well.

Land rental I guess...?

I can't think of any other reason. I guess it's just not explained very well.

Exclamation points don't look right after lines of someone whispering, is just what I was getting at.

All that does is signify it as an exclamation. It's commonly used to describe people raising their voice or shouting, because it is usually when people respond in an exclamatory way.

It's contradicting to exclaim a whisper, and is normally considered confusing to the reader.

It is not contradicting; as an exclamation is a sudden expressed remark. For example, you would be correct in putting an exclamation point to describe someone whispering the word "wow".

It's "a sudden cry or remark expressing surprise, strong emotion, or pain", which doesn't convey through a whisper. There's a reason why most people refrain from using exclamation points after an intended whisper. It may cause some confusion for the reader, and might even make one halt slightly mid-read, and that's something you should try to avoid as a writer.

Any confusion to the reader is merely a lack of knowledge of punctuation rules on the readers behalf. Also, exclamations aren't limited to expressing surprise, strong emotion, or pain. They are the most common forms of expression, but not the only.

A writer's job is to convey their writing in a simple way that won't break the flow for the reader. You're right in that most agree that it doesn't break any grammatical rules, but that's not the issue. Long, on-going sentences, while there not being anything strictly wrong with them, tend to be frowned upon in creative writing, since they're difficult to read. Using obscure phrases, overusing or underusing punctuation, and constructing dialogue in a strange way are other examples of this.

In the same way, adding an exclamation point after a whisper might break the flow for the reader and cause some unnecessary confusion, as it's normally associated with high volume when writing dialogue.

When writing, there are words used to describe how something is said. For example, whispered, shouted, stated, etc. If the reader can't determine how something is said with the use of those words, or if the simple use of less common, but correct, punctuation is enough to cause difficulty reading, then they are simply an inexperienced reader. Writers can choose to write however they want to; and following simple punctual rules does not make it any more difficult for the average reader to read it. You either are over-analyzing this for the sake of arguing, or don't have enough knowledge on the subject to understand how there is absolutely nothing wrong with how J. K. Rowling chooses to write.

And I consider you to be the one who doesn't know what he's talking about, and doesn't want to admit I make a good point.

Have a good one, now.

In the movies they claim harry talks in his sleep.

"He did!" whispered Hermione.

I wasn't aware that the only way to whisper was in a monotone, emontionless voice. Also, you can exclaim a whisper, you dingus.

Look below for all my responses to this. I'm pretty done with the conversation, to be honest.

Exclamation points don't look right after lines of someone whispering, is just what I was getting at.

All that does is signify it as an exclamation. It's commonly used to describe people raising their voice or shouting, because it is usually when people respond in an exclamatory way.

It's contradicting to exclaim a whisper, and is normally considered confusing to the reader.

It is not contradicting; as an exclamation is a sudden expressed remark. For example, you would be correct in putting an exclamation point to describe someone whispering the word "wow".

It's "a sudden cry or remark expressing surprise, strong emotion, or pain", which doesn't convey through a whisper. There's a reason why most people refrain from using exclamation points after an intended whisper. It may cause some confusion for the reader, and might even make one halt slightly mid-read, and that's something you should try to avoid as a writer.

Any confusion to the reader is merely a lack of knowledge of punctuation rules on the readers behalf. Also, exclamations aren't limited to expressing surprise, strong emotion, or pain. They are the most common forms of expression, but not the only.

A writer's job is to convey their writing in a simple way that won't break the flow for the reader. You're right in that most agree that it doesn't break any grammatical rules, but that's not the issue. Long, on-going sentences, while there not being anything strictly wrong with them, tend to be frowned upon in creative writing, since they're difficult to read. Using obscure phrases, overusing or underusing punctuation, and constructing dialogue in a strange way are other examples of this.

In the same way, adding an exclamation point after a whisper might break the flow for the reader and cause some unnecessary confusion, as it's normally associated with high volume when writing dialogue.

When writing, there are words used to describe how something is said. For example, whispered, shouted, stated, etc. If the reader can't determine how something is said with the use of those words, or if the simple use of less common, but correct, punctuation is enough to cause difficulty reading, then they are simply an inexperienced reader. Writers can choose to write however they want to; and following simple punctual rules does not make it any more difficult for the average reader to read it. You either are over-analyzing this for the sake of arguing, or don't have enough knowledge on the subject to understand how there is absolutely nothing wrong with how J. K. Rowling chooses to write.

And I consider you to be the one who doesn't know what he's talking about, and doesn't want to admit I make a good point.

Have a good one, now.

I know the lore, but it's mostly because I don't have THAT many Warhammer reaction pictures not dealing with Heresy.

Wot? I'm not talking Imperium/Space Marines in general. Black Templars.

Was also a joke about how they're noted to LITERALLY run into Enemy Fire.

I know the lore, but it's mostly because I don't have THAT many Warhammer reaction pictures not dealing with Heresy.

You know if any drug should be illegal it should be fucking alcohol, it's more dangerous to the public.

That's because it's used more widely. "LET'S FUCKING LEGALIZE HEROIN BECAUSE IT CAUSES LESS DAMAGE THAN ALCOHOL."

You say that like a heroin addict is more dangerous than a drunk, also alcohol is used more widely because its easier to ingest, even if heroin was legal it wouldn't cause an increase in heroin addicts.

I think it would.

You can think whatever you want it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.