Инсталирайте Steam
вход
|
език
Опростен китайски (简体中文)
Традиционен китайски (繁體中文)
Японски (日本語)
Корейски (한국어)
Тайландски (ไทย)
Чешки (Čeština)
Датски (Dansk)
Немски (Deutsch)
Английски (English)
Испански — Испания (Español — España)
Испански — Латинска Америка (Español — Latinoamérica)
Гръцки (Ελληνικά)
Френски (Français)
Италиански (Italiano)
Индонезийски (Bahasa Indonesia)
Унгарски (Magyar)
Холандски (Nederlands)
Норвежки (Norsk)
Полски (Polski)
Португалски (Português)
Бразилски португалски (Português — Brasil)
Румънски (Română)
Руски (Русский)
Финландски (Suomi)
Шведски (Svenska)
Турски (Türkçe)
Виетнамски (Tiếng Việt)
Украински (Українська)
Докладване на проблем с превода
Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that.
As someone who is a scientist who studies puppers, doggos, yappers, and even woofers, I am telling you, specifically, in doggology, no one calls puppers doggos. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.
If you're saying "doggo family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Doggodaemous, which includes things from sub woofers to birdos to sharkos (the glub glub kind not the bork bork kind).
Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A pupper is a pupper and a member of the doggo family. But that's not what you said. You said a pupper is a doggo, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the doggo family doggos, which means you'd call piggos, sluggos, and other species doggos, too. Which you said you don't.
It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?
█████░░░░██████████████
█████░░░░██████████████
█████░░░░█████░░░░░░░░░
█████░░░░█████░░░░░░░░░
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
░░░░░░░░░█████░░░░█████
░░░░░░░░░█████░░░░█████
██████████████░░░░█████
██████████████░░░░█████
██████████████░░░░█████
Post this windmill on 5 other profiles to keep Steam properly air conditioned