8 Lesta Nediam LNC2016-09-26 1640 +Controlled Opposition

Lesta Nediam LNC2016-09-26 1640 +Controlled Opposition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxyVM9Ykapg&lc=z13edvpj0neozxpeu232xjvwkxf5tbzfa
https://pastebin.com/reJwCcXt
__

+Controlled Opposition __ Howdy, you again! So - this time "Lesta is deceptive?" Okay, we can quickly determine who here is deceptive (and stupid). My simple question to you is as follows: >>> *Is it your assessment that my comment to Surfpurzel* [the one where I apparently "noticed she was still breathing" during a *2.5 minute still frame* haha] *was done in jest OR was it "serious" (and thus a "fail") as Surfpurzel continues to think and would have her audience believe*?










It does not matter whether you think my joke was a "good one" or not. It does not matter whether you think my joke was "worthwhile" or not. It does not matter whether you think my joke was "confusing" or "inappropriate" or a "waste of time". _None of that matters_. There is a simple reason why this question demands your answer: *What matters is that YOU can perceive it was indeed a joke - _that it was not intended seriously_ - and that you can ADMIT this IN FRONT OF Surfpurzel*.







Because "echo chambers" are bad, right? Supporting and enabling people who are wrong about something merely because they are "on your side" isn't good, right?







As someone who "prides" himself on being able to "research" events and "analyse" data your answer to this will be doubly insightful. You have been asked a simple and unambiguous question and if you cannot give a straightforward answer then it will reveal much about you.







It should be noted that you are someone who has spent considerable time on threads that have grown to ~500 messages. It should be noted that you have responded to many (if not all) of my past messages. It should be noted that you have written messages you expected to be read and responded to *that have been substantially longer* than this one to you.







And so if you are someone who is here *for the right reasons* and wish to be taken seriously then there is no excuse to avoid my simple question *_except outright cowardice_*.







If you want to *run your mouth* and tell others *behind my back* that "Lesta is deceptive" *then you will not hesitate* to man up and answer what has been asked *by the very person you accuse of being deceptive*. _Otherwise how are you not just a whinny little b!tch?_







You can write whatever crap you want - to me or about me - *but first you will answer what has been asked of you*. Or forevermore you can be known as that *coward* and chicken sh!t pu$$y (who dresses up like Putin in drag).







This message and my question to you - and your reply (or lack thereof) - will be screenshotted and presented *as a demonstration of your own honesty and integrity*. So you will answer the question if you don't want to be recognised as a sour puss who is fuelled by subjective sour grapes.







Because I'm sure you're wouldn't just be accusing Lesta of the very things *you* are guilty of yourself, right? You wouldn't do that, would you? Good. And so with bated breath I await your *honest* answer. Go ahead and set the example you want others to follow or enjoy the consequences of being a *self-confessed hypocrite*.


______________________________________________________________
My name is Lesta Nediam and I am cracking reality like a nut.

Lesta Nediam's YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DalBOEZ6RqSyHk8_mGV7w

Lesta Nediam's Google Plus:
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

Lesta Nediam's Twitter:
https://twitter.com/LestaNediam

Lesta Nediam's Public Comments:
https://pastebin.com/u/Lesta

What does not exist - exists to exist.
What exists - exists to always exist.
As it is written - so it is done.