Dark !HLa610O9S2 joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later[^][v]#1,015,519
Yes? What sort of idiot would say no?
Dark !HLa610O9S2 (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 3 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,015,531
@previous (Dark !HLa610O9S2)
Why are you impersonating me?
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,015,533
@previous (Dark !HLa610O9S2)
Why are you talking to yourself?
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 5 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,015,566
The "in-law" tag refers to the marriage contract between you and your partner. Though that contract may involve your partner's parents, it does not involve their siblings and even less so their siblings' children. So, mother-in-law and father-in-law make sense, but saying "my niece-in-law" is plain fucking asinine.
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 43 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,015,570
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 45 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,015,575
Yes, if you are engaged to a girl who has a sister/brother with a daughter, that would be your niece-in-law until you get married. Then she should officially be your niece.
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,015,577
@1,015,570 (B)
It's common knowledge... or perhaps you are the kind of person who needs to follow an instruction manual every time you tie your shoelaces? In that case I am terribly sorry that your education system let you down so badly.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 7 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,015,676
(uncommon) One's wife's sister's husband; or more generally one's spouse's brother-in-law, the brother of one spouse in relation to the siblings of the other spouse.
(uncommon, in the plural) Men who marry sisters.
(uncommon) One's brother-in-law or sister-in-law's brother; that is, one's sibling's spouse's brother (one's sister's husband's brother or one's brother's wife's brother).
(in the plural) Men whose brother and sister are married to each other.
If the brother marries his sister (Ancient Egyptian tradition) the offspring results in complex sibling relationships that are difficult to digest.
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 18 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,015,683
@1,015,677 (terri !RwordOooFE)
Did I say that? Don't think I did.
terri !RwordOooFE replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,015,685
@previous (D) > it does not involve their siblings and even less so their siblings' children.
you did
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,015,725
@previous (terri !RwordOooFE)
Yes. That is what I said. However I think you'll find I did not conclude from this that brother-in-laws and sister-in-laws don't exist.
terri !RwordOooFE replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,015,736
@previous (D) > it does not involve their siblings
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,015,767
@previous (terri !RwordOooFE)
So by your logic: "X does not involve Y" === "Y does not exist". OK.
terri !RwordOooFE replied with this 6 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,015,770
@previous (D)
you plainly said that the in-law relationship doesn't extend to siblings
so "by your logic", siblings-in-law wouldn't exist. ok
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 54 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,015,776
@previous (terri !RwordOooFE) > so "by your logic", siblings-in-law wouldn't exist. ok
Nono, that's your logic. I'm trying to understand the mental gymnastics you must be going through in order to draw that conclusion... but failing.
Here is what I said:
"A doesn't involve B"
Here is what you deduced and then attributed to me:
"That implies B doesn't exist"
Nope, sorry, doesn't make any fucking sense to me. But carry on.
terri !RwordOooFE replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,015,779
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,015,787
Newsflash to you basement dwelling virgins who have never kissed a girl: when you get married, everyone in your wife's family is an "in-law". Damn mora.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 38 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,015,792