Melanias purse wrote on Feb 11^th, 2026 at 11:29am:



Yeah, why IS that?

Skippy is being quite stupid.
When I look at the Palestinian protestors last night ( rent a crowd) I just see rather low agency people who like the safety of the mob.
You could study them , but there's not much to learn.

The shooter on the bridge however.
Now there's a guy worth studying.
A rich vein of knowledge and wisdom to be acquired by studying him.

In life we should study the outstanding successes and the outstanding failures.
It's nothing to do with envy , Skippy, you numptie.

At the edge is where all the learning is to be found.


If I could make one comment about people who post abuse against Trump or Hilary or Joe or Pauline or albo online.
I would think you would have to be in a very dark.plave to.just put anonymous hate out there into the ether.
It's why most people can teach you nothing.
Not worth studying.

Gweg and karmal , for instance, posting hate about malenia and her vaginal odour.

That's dark and boring
Best to move on a study more complex individuals.
Like Epstein and other Machiavellian  actors

aquascoot wrote on Feb 11^th, 2026 at 11:49am:


Calling abuse "study" doesn't magically launder it into insight. You're not analysing systems, incentives, or failures, you're romanticising pathological individuals and mistaking notoriety for depth.

Epstein isn't a "complex individual" in the sense you're pretending. He's a fairly banal predator who succeeded because institutions failed, people were compromised, and power shields itself. The interesting subject is why those systems protect men like him, not treating the man himself as some edge-case guru with "wisdom to be acquired".

Your examples give the game away. You dismiss protestors as low-agency mobs, then elevate mass shooters and traffickers as worthy of admiration-by-proxy because they're "at the edge". That's not seriousness, it's voyeurism dressed up as contrarian intellect.

Studying failure is valid. Studying crime is valid. Treating criminals as models, or implying there's something aspirational or instructive in their methods, is how moral blindness gets repackaged as sophistication.

And spare me the lectures about anonymous hate while you're openly sneering, name-calling, and fawning over child traffickers as "Machiavellian actors". That contradiction isn't edgy, it's incoherent.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Feb 11^th, 2026 at 12:27pm:


Is that what he's doing? Here we all were thinking he's just trying to get DL and his buddies off the hook.

But he's actually trying to virtue signal sophistication, is he?

How diabolically creepy. I thought Bobby was desperate for calling for Ghislaine's pardon.

Or the old boy, with his nudge nudge allegations of pedestrianism.

But you're right. Feigning academic status for incoherent words salads excusing child sex traffickers takes the cake.

Aquascoot's got a PhD in hay. He's as studious as that poster who threw a two-year tantrum over Bill, the old dog, Clinton flying Epstein Airlines.

Strange, that was Aquascoot too. One of these things is just like the other, no?

How sophisticated.

Frank wrote on Feb 11^th, 2026 at 1:49pm:


Where have I lied?  Put up or shut up.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 11^th, 2026 at 1:57pm:

Somehow, I'm doubting you'd be trafficked by an Epsteinian bloke for sex in the UAE.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 11^th, 2026 at 2:06pm:



No but I might get invited to a dinner party with a few celebrities and I would now question the motivation of the host and remember that your reputation takes a lifetime to build and one mistake to destroy .
So I might not go . Studying Epstein has helped me avoid a pitfall