>>114594196>Except you brought up EE&E as an example, Right, to show why the sex goddess thing was stupid, and your counter was, and continues to be "Well, Kankers".
>No? I said they were attractive which is something many agree on, that's just a bonus to the showSo then even if a show has characters most would not consider attractive, /co/ still wouldn't call it SJW and, in fact, they may think very highly of it, meaning that point was stupid.
Or we loop back to "Nuh uh, Kankers man." Pick your poison.
> exagerationNot even gonna pick that one up, too obvious.
>Which had like two focus episodes topsSo you remember I said I had the wiki open, right? Just gotta hit ctrl f? Or if that's all you remember, I don't blame you, that show really sucked when they started trying to make it into a tween drama.
No room for he vampire thing
> he came from a Finn related plot point?All of this did, but then they spiraled out into shit people didn't watch.
>Ok contrarianDamn you didn't take Santa not being real very well.
>And did Sony called it a flop? Didn't say it did. Illumination in regards to a movie that cost less and made more money, well...
>Did Rio won Seriously stop, I'm not taking the bait.
>Also how can Spiderverse be forgotten and a flop if they are making a sequel for it?They made a sequel to Nut Job.
>blind hatred Why bother hating it? Where's the threat in a "eh" movie that made less than Kong? Its fine, enjoy it, I'm sure you like it. But threatening, well.
Its more cute than anything, even with the oscar they fell so short.
>guess once again your dumb metric failed you againSo did Batwoman.
But hey, still not popular, so lets not mention it next to Fortnite, wouldn't want that kids game to slum it with the losers.
>exaggerationHey congrats!
>Empty insults just prove you lost the argument So do empty attempts at saying "it was all just pretending."
You posted a lot of dumb shit, you were wrong, you yourself proved yourself wrong. It happens.
