By Anonymous - 18/11/2009 03:43 - United States

Today, me, a coworker, and my manager were looking at random advertisements. One ad was a picture of three fishes. My coworker named the three fishes what I thought were completely random names. I said "those are stupid names." Turns out those are my manager's kid's names. FML
I agree, your life sucks 9 587
You deserved it 32 324

Add a comment

You must be logged in to be able to post comments!

Top comments

crzyry 6

Ydi for being a dumbass. "Fish" is a singular and plural word.

YDI for being judgmental.


YDI for being judgmental.

#1 Whats judgmental about stating a fact? lol FYL for not understanding basic words :D

OP could've covered it up by saying "I mean, for fish."

i was gunna say that #25...

teebonehead 0

this guy works with a total butt kisser !

awww trout, bass and salmon are manly/pretty names! not judgmental..,,

newmxr 0

lol agreed wit 25

That is why you shouldn't bash at random.

sesquipedalian44 0

looks like your going to be job hunting :)

Say they're strange names for fish. No FML here.

wtf?! and I've wanted to say this for awhile....FAIL! Lame FML.

sleepy, sneezy and bashful the fish?

crzyry 6

Ydi for being a dumbass. "Fish" is a singular and plural word.

Intellectualist 0

You can use fishes as a plural, it's just not used often. 'fish n. , pl. , fish , or fishes . Any of numerous cold-blooded aquatic vertebrates of the superclass Pisces, characteristically having fins, gills'. It says it in the dictionary, and if that's not right, I don't know what is.

You're right, both are technically acceptable.

Still, the OP's grammar is still awful! Look at the rest of the post!

Intellectualist 0

I never said it wasn't, but, fishes is acceptable. Depends on the context.

liveBabylon 0

it's only fishs if your talking about different species of fish, 3 gold fish or 3 fishes depending if maybe one was a coi or something.

i know people will hate on me for this but i know you all thought the same so i'll say it: "wow, first black guy to know good grammar!"

blindwhisper 0

hahahah made my day. might have been nice names, but sounded stupid when associated to fish ... i dont see any problem here

The problem is his grammar...

whhy_fml 1

You do realise that the plural for fish is not fishes right, were you trying to be funny? the plural for fish is also just fish its the same as the plural form of sheep is still sheep

Intellectualist 0

No, I wasn't just being funny. I know how language works, and it is in the oxford dictionary, it's just a very old way of saying the plural. It's just that language has changed, but it can be used, and is an acceptable way of pluralising fish.

i_is_a_tr00l 0

"...For fish." Idiot.