Difference between revisions of "Talk:Deathwatch"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m ("have scissor / will run") |
(→hit points: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''''LiveJournal''''' is choking more of tinfoil wraparounds than realities now, [AFAIK,] hedging there in the 'crisis' department, as it currently does. - Would a 'Got Better' subparagraph work for it, (..with some bylines not to take all eyes of it, still,) or is something looming that I can't see, here? - [[User:Name]] ''- Later: I've taken some whimsical liberties on this one'', ymmv. | '''''LiveJournal''''' is choking more of tinfoil wraparounds than realities now, [AFAIK,] hedging there in the 'crisis' department, as it currently does. - Would a 'Got Better' subparagraph work for it, (..with some bylines not to take all eyes of it, still,) or is something looming that I can't see, here? - [[User:Name]] ''- Later: I've taken some whimsical liberties on this one'', ymmv. | ||
== hit points == | |||
i like it. maybe we could have some sort of Hit Point system for sites, as they're taking damage. haha. | |||
--[[User:Ross|Ross]] 13:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:58, 10 January 2009
LiveJournal is choking more of tinfoil wraparounds than realities now, [AFAIK,] hedging there in the 'crisis' department, as it currently does. - Would a 'Got Better' subparagraph work for it, (..with some bylines not to take all eyes of it, still,) or is something looming that I can't see, here? - User:Name - Later: I've taken some whimsical liberties on this one, ymmv.
hit points
i like it. maybe we could have some sort of Hit Point system for sites, as they're taking damage. haha.
--Ross 13:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)