Anonymous
8/29/2025, 10:23:16 AM
No.11365905
>>11365837
wow!! crazy lewd dialogue, anon!!! though, personally i prefer rape over loli, haha. i tend to prefer emotional taboos (rape, pain, abuse) over more physical ones like loli, wearing inappropriate dresses in public, etc.
also, i am too lazy to do it now, but i reread my proposed correction rentry, and i think i'd like to amend/ take back one thing i said, but i'm too lazy to edit it right now, so i'll just tell you it right here: i was wrong about the "future tense" thing i said about paragraph five (5):
>"you" should be "you'd"/"you would", since the "you'll" just before establishes the sentence as being future tense, so doing this will make it match the tense
you didn't make the change anyway- so that's a relief-, but this made me realize that i should've prefaced the whole thing with a disclaimer saying that as in all art, correctness is merely a suggestion, not a rule, so limiting opportunity for creative expression for the sake of correctness doesn't always do the art justice. but in this case, anyway, i was simply wrong about the use cases, in my outright saying that there was only one (1) correct option, and yours was a mistake, sorry. for example, consider the following sentences:
>you should go to the festival; you'll see something [you'd] like
>you should go to the festival; you'll see something [you] like
while it's true that past the semicolon the former has standardized tenses and the latter doesn't (which i thought made the latter incorrect), the one with differing tenses isn't incorrect; looking at the context, it only suggests that it's referring to the "you" in the present, and not the prospective (future tense) "you". it is a meaningful distinction, in that making it future tense (my original proposed only correct option... sorry), you divorce the person from the present, which culls sympathy. keeping it present tense like you did just affirms you're referring to them right now, and not the idea that their taste will change down the road
wow!! crazy lewd dialogue, anon!!! though, personally i prefer rape over loli, haha. i tend to prefer emotional taboos (rape, pain, abuse) over more physical ones like loli, wearing inappropriate dresses in public, etc.
also, i am too lazy to do it now, but i reread my proposed correction rentry, and i think i'd like to amend/ take back one thing i said, but i'm too lazy to edit it right now, so i'll just tell you it right here: i was wrong about the "future tense" thing i said about paragraph five (5):
>"you" should be "you'd"/"you would", since the "you'll" just before establishes the sentence as being future tense, so doing this will make it match the tense
you didn't make the change anyway- so that's a relief-, but this made me realize that i should've prefaced the whole thing with a disclaimer saying that as in all art, correctness is merely a suggestion, not a rule, so limiting opportunity for creative expression for the sake of correctness doesn't always do the art justice. but in this case, anyway, i was simply wrong about the use cases, in my outright saying that there was only one (1) correct option, and yours was a mistake, sorry. for example, consider the following sentences:
>you should go to the festival; you'll see something [you'd] like
>you should go to the festival; you'll see something [you] like
while it's true that past the semicolon the former has standardized tenses and the latter doesn't (which i thought made the latter incorrect), the one with differing tenses isn't incorrect; looking at the context, it only suggests that it's referring to the "you" in the present, and not the prospective (future tense) "you". it is a meaningful distinction, in that making it future tense (my original proposed only correct option... sorry), you divorce the person from the present, which culls sympathy. keeping it present tense like you did just affirms you're referring to them right now, and not the idea that their taste will change down the road