>>7
No,
>>4 's post clearly DOES fail since it asserts that A (the name RedCream) is a result of B (blood-contaminated shit derived from fucked gayass). Since A is NOT a result of B in my case, the assertion fails.
On top of that, not all shit is creamy, so the fail doubles at least. Doublefail isn't
epic, true, but it is larger and more humiliating.
I do recall the story of the faux RedCream father. Since it was a false story, it has
no applicability. Your implication is dangerously close to
fail.