6 ms·
> no one calls that “chucking” where I’m from at least not disagreeing in substance, but a couple of quibbles: that absolutely does qualify as chucking--it's t
by fsckboy 4y ago
> no one calls that “chucking” where I’m from at least
not disagreeing in substance, but a couple of quibbles: that absolutely does qualify as chucking--it's the way woodchucks chuck--but it does not qualify as chucking at someone; so as an underhand toss, it wasn't underhanded
- eyelidlessness 4y agoThis is the best kind of pedantry: agreeing in spirit with the intent but clarifying words used to express it.