can you all please think deeper on what i just wrote?

 

 

the court should know by its series of confessions an misleads,

it never had an intent of uncovering any truth, since the moment it came on to the channel.

 

it was all about exploitation.

 

anything that is prior to the first confession must be dismissed.

as the confession was of that, in entirety.

read it again. observe the situation that led to that confession.

 

anything after that, i was making sure where i got the trigger of my ideas,

as i came up with them LIVE.

 

so this 'person' is attempting to attack, ambiguity of origins using the only fact

it was physically present beside me. that is it.

 

if otherwise since the moment it came on to the channel, it would be in its defense.

clinging on to anything that it claims have stolen. instead you see its confession.

and silences, contradictions as i am using my own ideas, enhancing and improving in diffeent scenarios, watever it is.

 

you folks are asserting what is situationally (monitoring, blindness), and evidently (timing, confession), motivationally (it would be focused on anything stolen if there were) impossible.

 

so i can see that these people, in order to save themselves,

you force your antagonization on to me.

 

but what you suggest offend reason.

you offend basic human responses in fear (i would have fear if i'm the perpetrator), memory (reminders for steve, its own lack of memory since the beginning ),

 

and you are lenient, far beyond how it should be, knowing its repeating intent to harm. since the beginning.

 

stop. i'm talking to the public in support of my attackers.