Yet you care enough about my posts to keep trying to protect your fragile ego.

Put this into perspective. Not only have you demonstrated that you care about the opinion of a complete stranger (me) by posting at length and with vitriol in an attempt to bolster your obviously low self esteem, but you care so much about one stranger you've never met (Tate) to feel the need to defend his honour from another stranger you've never met (Greta) to a bunch of other strangers you've never met.

I don't know what's more sad, your celebrity worship or your need for validation.

Your emotions have gotten the better of you and you have the pity of those who have read your mewlings, but not our respect. That will come when you show some self respect rather than this self-abasement which you seem so hell bent on displaying.

Nah, I care about the objective reader. You fell into the trap and proved yourself to be a brainless twirp, like so many others before you. Everyone here already knows me now for nearly 15 years, this is what I do.


Peace,

kowalski

To clarify, for the objective reader ... the act of typing a series of letters on a keyboard is simply a mechanical process that involves pressing keys on a keyboard to input letters and symbols into a computer or other electronic device. It is not inherently connected to any emotional state or experience.

For example, a typist who is simply transcribing text or taking dictation may have no emotional connection to the words they are typing. They are simply performing a mechanical task that involves typing a series of letters on a keyboard.

Similarly, a writer who is crafting a work of fiction may use a wide range of emotional language to convey the feelings and experiences of their characters. However, the act of typing these words does not necessarily convey any emotion on the part of the writer.

In both of these examples, it is important to recognize the limitations of written communication. This is especially important when interpreting the written words of others, as it can be easy to fall into the trap of assuming that the emotional content of written words is inherent to the act of typing itself. It is also important to be aware of the potential for deception, as people may intentionally or unintentionally alter their emotional state through their written words.

owned.


Peace,

kowalski

The only matrix that has me is the DMT realm.

Of which I'm happy to serve.

You said they gave away the location by the name on the pizza box. I showed evidence that suggests this is not true. Instead of acknowledging this, you made a completely different argument. This is not a productive way to have a discussion. You need to admit that you were wrong and that you were gullible. You are repeating mainstream media talking points, despite claiming not to follow mainstream media. This shows a lack of critical thinking skills.

It is not accurate to say that Greta Thunberg was randomly targeted without provocation. She has been publicly promoting her beliefs for a long time and it is not unreasonable to think that someone might take issue with her actions. The fact that you view her as an innocent child being attacked shows that you are being manipulated by those in power.

Saying "you probably have a small penis" as a comeback is not a good or effective argument. It is a low blow and shows a lack of intelligence and creativity.

The reply is not being scrutinized. That the obvious next line in this age old bit.
"I eat pieces of shit like you for breakfast"
"You eat pieces of shit" Adam Sandler

Please have some self-respect and admit when you are wrong. It is not helpful to protect your ego at the expense of having a productive conversation. Instead of doubling down and changing the subject, try to admit your mistake and reevaluate the situation. It is okay to not have an opinion on everything.


Peace,

kowalski

To be totally honest, this morning my thoughts on him changed, even before coming on here and reading your latest response.

I watched one of Russell Brands' recent videos (he's another one well-known for being fearlessly outspoken). In this video he let us know about what was going on with the digital ID proposals, which are a very real thing and actually happening right now - in India, for example, citizens have to register on some platform or something by the 1st of April 2023, or their money is no longer valid, or they won't get paid (or something like that).

That's just one thing, there's a lot more similarly worrying shit to it but anyway, I sent the video to a friend and she responded with her views on it but also signposted me to a few people who have spoken out about this kind of thing and then some, and one of her suggestions was Andrew Tate.

This made me realise I didn't really know the full extent of what he has and hasn't said. Then I thought about the very first thing you wrote on this thread, that the people who pull the levers didn't like it one bit, and then I got it. He's obviously been saying the kind of things publicly that most influential people are scared shitless to say on camera for fear of losing their perceived credibility. But Andrew doesn't give a fuck.

While on the surface, the Twitter thing looked like he got owned purely based on "ratio" (a stupid Twitter term the Twitter people use) but in this particular instance, I think I understand the point he was really making - climate change is a lie, he can have as many high-emissions cars as he wants, and it doesn't make a difference.

These are my initial thoughts on the matter but as of today, my views have been re-directed.

We could have been really doing with him in 2020.