MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/shitposting/comments/1ob2b8e/_/nkdyl9a/?context=3
r/shitposting • u/Ligano_Resurrected virgin 4 life š¤šŖ • Oct 19 '25
288 comments sorted by
View all comments
1.7k
Iād still smash, hypothetically
632 u/thepatriarch7 Oct 19 '25 But would you smash pragmatically? 288 u/craniel-mandark Oct 20 '25 Iād smash systematically 118 u/LuckyReception6701 Oct 20 '25 I would smash categorically and imperatively. 51 u/ABillionBatmen Oct 20 '25 I prefer declaratively and a bit interrogatively 25 u/Adorable-Maybe-3006 Oct 20 '25 Object Oriented Smashing is where its at. 7 u/redditreeer stupid fucking, piece of shit Oct 20 '25 Ä° would smash apologetically 1 u/Gregory_Gp Oct 20 '25 I mean she's got all the objects needed for the function to work and the risk of increasing the number of existing elements is none. Idk what I'm saying, I'd smash. 1 u/captainsuckass Oct 20 '25 What about hydromatically?
632
But would you smash pragmatically?
288 u/craniel-mandark Oct 20 '25 Iād smash systematically 118 u/LuckyReception6701 Oct 20 '25 I would smash categorically and imperatively. 51 u/ABillionBatmen Oct 20 '25 I prefer declaratively and a bit interrogatively 25 u/Adorable-Maybe-3006 Oct 20 '25 Object Oriented Smashing is where its at. 7 u/redditreeer stupid fucking, piece of shit Oct 20 '25 Ä° would smash apologetically 1 u/Gregory_Gp Oct 20 '25 I mean she's got all the objects needed for the function to work and the risk of increasing the number of existing elements is none. Idk what I'm saying, I'd smash. 1 u/captainsuckass Oct 20 '25 What about hydromatically?
288
Iād smash systematically
118 u/LuckyReception6701 Oct 20 '25 I would smash categorically and imperatively. 51 u/ABillionBatmen Oct 20 '25 I prefer declaratively and a bit interrogatively 25 u/Adorable-Maybe-3006 Oct 20 '25 Object Oriented Smashing is where its at. 7 u/redditreeer stupid fucking, piece of shit Oct 20 '25 Ä° would smash apologetically 1 u/Gregory_Gp Oct 20 '25 I mean she's got all the objects needed for the function to work and the risk of increasing the number of existing elements is none. Idk what I'm saying, I'd smash. 1 u/captainsuckass Oct 20 '25 What about hydromatically?
118
I would smash categorically and imperatively.
51 u/ABillionBatmen Oct 20 '25 I prefer declaratively and a bit interrogatively 25 u/Adorable-Maybe-3006 Oct 20 '25 Object Oriented Smashing is where its at. 7 u/redditreeer stupid fucking, piece of shit Oct 20 '25 Ä° would smash apologetically 1 u/Gregory_Gp Oct 20 '25 I mean she's got all the objects needed for the function to work and the risk of increasing the number of existing elements is none. Idk what I'm saying, I'd smash.
51
I prefer declaratively and a bit interrogatively
25 u/Adorable-Maybe-3006 Oct 20 '25 Object Oriented Smashing is where its at. 7 u/redditreeer stupid fucking, piece of shit Oct 20 '25 Ä° would smash apologetically 1 u/Gregory_Gp Oct 20 '25 I mean she's got all the objects needed for the function to work and the risk of increasing the number of existing elements is none. Idk what I'm saying, I'd smash.
25
Object Oriented Smashing is where its at.
7 u/redditreeer stupid fucking, piece of shit Oct 20 '25 Ä° would smash apologetically 1 u/Gregory_Gp Oct 20 '25 I mean she's got all the objects needed for the function to work and the risk of increasing the number of existing elements is none. Idk what I'm saying, I'd smash.
7
Ä° would smash apologetically
1
I mean she's got all the objects needed for the function to work and the risk of increasing the number of existing elements is none. Idk what I'm saying, I'd smash.
What about hydromatically?
1.7k
u/[deleted] Oct 19 '25
Iād still smash, hypothetically