No it didn't. :P WTF is "tot hours"?

I can now understand Shakespeare.

Whoops, an italian saying mixed with english. Fixed.

Play Silent Hill 3 with hard puzzles. You'll need to know Shakespeare.

Yes, the hill has been silent, ever since we the committee imposed the silencing in order to prevent the communication, or transference of ideas that could be construed as conveying information, which would be counterproductive to the essential goals that our organization rigorously espouses through the prevention of flow - or more accurately, the uninhibited leakage - of information, which we term "leakage of information" so as not to coin any new words and thus be inadvertently guilty of perpetrating the same undesired consequences.

Favourited! :)

Ah, but have you, as of yet, determined the need for said committee, considering that the issue in question (hitherto referred to as merely "the issue" in order to reduce confusion and mitigate the need for more superfluous verbiage), and the purported leakage of information thereof, has not in fact been determined to be detrimental to the aforementioned goals of said organization - that is, the prevention of the uninhibited leakage of information - though it may indeed appear to be in contradiction to the undertaking of the organization (again, the aforementioned organization to which I am referring), I contend this leakage may not, in fact, fall under the definition of "uninhibited", which is, again, paramount to the goal of the organization in reference to the issue - that is, the prevention of the flow thereof.

My extensive (or, some would say, excessively extensive) analysis of information and the leakage thereof - intentional, uninhibited or otherwise - has been such that it has illuminated certain as-of-yet not already explained and established principals which have lead me to believe (if belief is something in which one can even believe, believe it or not) that the need for said committee is as strong and necessary as ever, especially considering that all leakage, by definition, and by the very nature of said definition, as I and many others understand it to be, is uninhibited, for after all, were it inhibited, would it not be prevented from happening in the first place?

Furthermore and more to the point, if not too on-the-nose, so to speak, I take great umbrage in your misguided and juvenile attempts to "reduce confusion", as it were, considering that confusion is the glue that so precariously holds together this fragile structure that I have built; your audacious attempt to "mitigate the need for superfluous verbiage" entirely misses the point, given that superfluous verbiage is by far the most useful tool in constructing such pompous and self-indulgent drivel as that in which you are now participating, per se, so to speak, ad nauseam.

Mendax juncta mentis parvus sequor vi ferant se si. Ut debiliora consistat cerebella an co scriptura ob. Fas perspicuum repugnemus realitatem durationem uno non imaginaria perfectior ibi. Pati re vice ista ecce ante etsi co to. Dum defixus cau creatus quietem ens usitata mei prorsus. Ratio has rea sed illis vapor mutuo est putat. Humanam idemque credent animali jam dem aberrem quantum. Capram facile minima me ea numero ii secius. Aucta tur operi parte rom ignem. Fortassis ab medicinam succedens desumptas ob confirmet du mo. Cui aucta extat habet non. Ego quaesita aliosque subducam reliquis has quicquam hos recensui. Cujuspiam nonnullae plerosque et indidisse mo. Extensum dat cau habuerim tollitur iii ostendam. Gratiam me nihilum du aperire. Res temporis scribere reliquis mox nihilque supponam ita eos. Rom cui credidisse religionis sub quaestione uti....

Indeed we are moving forward as progressively as possible, however none explicit or otherwise expunging the impossible nuances of there in, if (pardon my bluntlessness) such ever existed. Therefore the explained have been amended with non-chastisement and rather challenged attribute in a such way it conclusively will alter how it would or would be functioning.

non-conferrable end of line...

Progression, and in general, progress, is not to be desired, for it would nullify the indecisive neutrality currently present within the situation at hand which, by the way, your "bluntlessness" as you so inarticulately call it, has failed to address (for which our organization [disorganized as it may be] proudly commends you), and as for the remainder of your comment, I can make neither heads nor tails - or for that matter, fins or gills of what it supposedly implies, nor any further implications indirectly represented by it, and for this, the organization also commends you.

Poppycock!

This premise is contracting in a way that may or may not been noticed the notice about the [CENSORED], under the article [CENSORED] et al that binding mentioned [CENSORED] with haste is forever enticed and censored. We are not in the possession to dictate the evermore oncoming volitional act from not specified sources, but further excessive (things should get ugly so you better get properly decimated before such ongoing progress would take place in the random invoice from slash NULL) notice would require more [CENSORED], unintentional or coolness or otherwise non-sequitur.


Never heard that one before :-)

I must say that poppycock (or in some dialects, cockypop) is one of the greatest assets of the organization previously alluded to but never actually named (although you are obviously aware to which organization I am referring, so further specification is implicitly unnecessary), and such poppycock as this provides invaluable (literally lacking any value whatsoever) insight into the issue we are currently addressing, as well as other relevant issues that may or may not be addressed in the future, depending on whether we can easily skirt around any tendency to crassly mention their particular content.

4 pages and I still have no idea what this is about.