Hello There, Guest!  LoginRegister

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
technically no
Author Message
Nicknclank Offline
The Strategist
****

Posts: 318
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 6
Thanks: 0
Given 28 thank(s) in 21 post(s)
Post: #17
RE: technically no
(08-02-2012 03:10 AM)BumblebeeCody Wrote:  
(08-02-2012 01:55 AM)Scormac Wrote:  
(08-02-2012 01:45 AM)SERIOUSLY THOUGH Wrote:  
(08-01-2012 11:07 PM)BumblebeeCody Wrote:  @SERIOUSLY THOUGH
Oh dear[/font][/color]

MOW ROTOM !? SERIOUSLY !?

I swear now they're just picking random household objects and making them into Pokémon.
What next ? Vibratorox ? Teapotasaurusomon ?

Actually it is Rotom posessing the stuff

Even if it is possessing stuff, no joke if that happened to me, I would be freaked out.
But what would be far more terrifying to be confronted by:
This?
[Image: Spr_4d_383.png]
or this?
[Image: 479W.png]
Groudon would burn your face off. The worst thing Rotom would do for me is do the washing.

Well ACTUALLY, the image you showed was Rotom possessing a washing machine, so now, he has access to the move Hydro Pump (It's true!)

The reason that Rotom is considered legendary is because of a special online event. If you had Rotom and went to a special place, it could possess different appliances, such as a washing machine, a fan, etc. But if Rotom took possession of one of them, he could get a special move (Fan=Special Flying Move). Since it's one of the ONLY pokemon that had this kind of event, it is considered as a legendary.

As for me, I think that's bulls**t.
08-02-2012 03:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
technically no - zax1998 - 07-30-2012, 09:44 PM
RE: technically yes - BumblebeeCody - 07-30-2012, 09:52 PM
RE: technically no - Scormac - 07-30-2012, 10:07 PM
RE: technically no - SERIOUSLY THOUGH - 07-30-2012, 11:19 PM
RE: technically no - zax1998 - 07-31-2012, 08:30 PM
RE: technically no - BumblebeeCody - 08-01-2012, 01:46 AM
RE: technically no - SERIOUSLY THOUGH - 08-01-2012, 07:41 PM
RE: technically no - Raven - 08-01-2012, 02:38 AM
RE: technically no - BumblebeeCody - 08-01-2012, 09:23 AM
RE: technically no - Scormac - 08-01-2012, 10:42 AM
RE: technically no - BumblebeeCody - 08-01-2012, 11:07 PM
RE: technically no - SERIOUSLY THOUGH - 08-02-2012, 01:45 AM
RE: technically no - Scormac - 08-02-2012, 01:55 AM
RE: technically no - BumblebeeCody - 08-02-2012, 03:10 AM
RE: technically no - Nicknclank - 08-02-2012 03:49 AM
RE: technically no - DarkNerd - 08-06-2012, 10:51 AM
RE: technically no - SERIOUSLY THOUGH - 08-06-2012, 08:56 PM
RE: technically no - Scormac - 08-01-2012, 06:28 AM
RE: technically no - DarkNerd - 08-01-2012, 06:31 PM

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)