tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14814104.post7199744354755067525..comments2008-08-25T19:56:19.524-07:00Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01976357961501536858noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14814104.post-16313654039797320802008-08-25T19:56:00.000-07:002008-08-25T19:56:00.000-07:00Blogger Tom Biro said...<BR/><BR/> It is actually even funnier because it's covered by a plant.<BR/><BR/> 8:11 AM<BR/><BR/><BR/>LOLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14814104.post-44875906552803383252008-06-13T08:11:00.000-07:002008-06-13T08:11:00.000-07:00It is actually even funnier because it's covered by a plant.Tom Birohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04787411424630269287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14814104.post-66231627690274488272008-05-27T02:19:00.000-07:002008-05-27T02:19:00.000-07:00Reminds me of this complex contraction:<BR/>1. I am going to<BR/>2. I am gonna<BR/>3. I’m gonna<BR/>4. I’m’amattyuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08325216452034967795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14814104.post-58073234879885609622008-05-26T08:34:00.000-07:002008-05-26T08:34:00.000-07:00I thought so too, at first, but typically an abbreviation means letters are removed. So maybe "ought'a"?Abigailhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15784091223235707418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14814104.post-74006583108257327582008-05-08T19:04:00.000-07:002008-05-08T19:04:00.000-07:00Isn't this a proper (though redneck)way to abbreviate "ought to?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com