>this is a 10
It's not.
And also, it's a bit creepy all the anons that are drooling over a married a woman - especially while claiming to support her husband…
>Lighten up, it was just a compliment.
Yours might have been, but are you telling me you are not seeing all the anons here fantasizing about her?
>They both look good for their age
>for their age
Sure…
>you didn't know their age you'd probably guess that they are much younger.
That's only because of the current trends where young women gets so much plastic surgery that they look 50 by the age of 21.
Note how confirmation bias makes it so no matter what anons say to you, you take it as confirmation that your assertions are correct.
You are doing it again anon. Stop the simping.
Melania is nothing special and I don't know who the other you're talking about is.
Also, she's a former super model.
>live a clean life
Because that's what super models do… kek.
>if my assumptions are confirmed to be true then they must be true?
But they are not. You are reading into things that aren't there.
>my descriptions are notes, and do not need comments.
Your notes are flawed.
>the festering shill-crews that lurk here are obvious.
If you call everyone a shill then sure, i guess.
>I merely describe them in broad terms with notes about what they seem to be.
And when challenged on your descriptions you take it as confirmation of your descriptions. That's how confirmation bias works.
>if my notes are incorrect there is no consequence
No long term, no. That's the beauty of being anon. But in the immediate you are seen as a self important buffoon.
>however you are too quick to respond to my throw-away commentry to be an organic presence here.
And there it is. Make an assertion and use that assertion to claim that I'm confirming your bias due to your assertion.
>do you respond to those who talk about conflict constantly here?
Yes. If I have something to say. I post.
That's what anons do.
>probably not.
Wrong.
>It seems to me your purpose is to draw effort from the real people here, waste their time, and be a gatekeeper.
My purpose here is to enjoy the free speech permitted here. I wish I had some info worth gate keeping.
You are seeing enemies everywhere. Especially where there are none.
> I didn't respond to anyone with my first post and yet it drew a conflict response.
This is an open forum. You made a moranic statement. Anons tell you that you are a moran.
>and now you , a second person do another conflict responise pretending to some psychological 'you are not OK' authority.
I didn't say you were not 'OK', I told how you twist everything any anon posts to fit your bias - while using mimicking your writing style.
>I'm sure you're OK.
Idk man. Things are rough. Kek.
>You're most likely paid to be here and you are trying to cause distress to the ones who are not paid but post here for other purposes than what bosses and paymasters demand of them.
And you got all that from 2 posts I posted? Well done. You are however wrong. I wish I was paid to be here, then I didn't have to workfag too.
>have a great day.
You too. kek.
If nothing else works. Double down.
If you wasn't this lazy you'd know how I knew you'd post doubling down.
>the know it all gatekeepers get filtered by me anon
Oh noooo! not the filter. That's just ebil.
Kek
>as I said, I wrote a throw away commentary and if it's wrong it's wrong.
Fair. But don't be surprised when anons challenge you on wrong assertions.
>slow hour means that the banter bots are 'on', correct?
Define banter bot. You called me a banter bot, but I'm no bot.
When bread is slow, bread starts sliding. Maybe bots are employed to facilitate that, but it would happen without bots too.
>What am I trying to 'make work'?
I don't know?
>I unfiltered you because I realized you are making a cry for interation.
Wat? What is interation?
>have a hug, anon. you don't need to spend so much effort debunking or whatever you think you're doing for me.
Is that why you are now defending yourself from my debunking even after admitting defeat and rage quitting (filtered)?
>and your picture of the kid with the you, what was that about?
What kid? You are scaring me anon.
>your assumptions are fowl, anon.
I make no assumption, you do.
>so maybe you have some work you need to do too, on your own methods.
My methods are stellar. Yours however… could use some polishing.
>have a blessed day and stop posting pictures of people that supposedly represent deficiency and idiocy becuase it's so unkind.
You new here? (pic related)
Holy shit anon, you went off the deep end with the skizo posting.
>that is NOT OK
You clearly are not OK.
Your previous reply to me was a schizophrenic mess.
>the conflict bot continues in it's relentless effort to draw out satanic anger from people.
>it fails.
It's been 20+ minutes since my last post?
Relentless, I see. kek.