Pošlji vabilo za prijateljstvo
Pošlji zasebno sporočilo
Moški, ki imajo suhoparen "ratio pristop" v življenju, kot kakšen Navajo, še posebej do žensk, ne bodo nikoli osvojili ženske v pravem pomenu besede, razen če najdejo ženske z zelo načeto samozavestjo, s skrhano duševnostjo in z nizko samopodobo, ki so bile ranjenje - najpogosteje v otroštvu, s strani očeta, kjer sedaj po istem ključu v odrasli dobi izbirajo partnerja, ker je njihov oče bil odtujen, morda podcenjevalen, morda alkoholik, nasilnež, a v vsakem primeru hladen v odnosu do njih. Takšne ženske pogosto gredo v destruktivno zvezo, se pustijo (verbalno in/ali fizično) zlorabljati in (seksualno) izkoriščat za drobtinice čustvene pozornosti/naklonjenosti. Če koga zanima, kakšen je ta tip žensk, nam iz svoje osebne zbirke narcisoidnih samo(pre)hval lepo opiše Navajo - popolnoma podredljive in emocionalno in tudi finančno odvisne od njega. Lahko hodi po njej, jo zaničuje, ponižuje, pretepa, pa bo oziroma mora biti "zadovoljna", celo "srečna", da ga ima. 😆
Medtem ko zdrava ženska nikoli ne izbere malignega narcisa, tudi "alfa" samca ne, ki jih je baje ostalo le še za vzorec - 5%, v kolikor upoštevamo navedbe Navaja 🙂 , ker je seveda on eden od njih in Andrew Tate. 😉 Ampak psihološko zdrava ženska izbere takšnega moškega, s katerim lahko vzpostavi in splete (globjo) čustveno vez, zgrajeno na zaupanju in medsebojnem spoštovanju, da se lahko zaneseš na človeka in veš, da te ne bo zavrgel, pustil na cedilu, če recimo pride do kakšnih bolezni ali drugih preizkušenj, ko rabiš nekoga, ki ti ne bo zaračunal, kakšne koristi imaš od njega.
Pravi odnosi nikoli niso transakcije, kot je popačeno videnje Navaja, ki je "bukov štor", in si predstavlja, da z vsako žensko vstopa v hladen, preračunljiv in tekmovalni poslovni svet, kjer se le gleda, "kdo bo koga", kdo bo "zmagovalec", kdo bo "nadvladoval" nad drugim - v čemer se skriva samo izrazita sla pa moči in dominiranju, kjer seveda ni prostora za čustva in empatijo - spet ena značilna priteklina narcisov in psihopatov.
Hladno razumarstvo je nasilje nad čustveno sfero, ki ga sicer največkrat upodabljajo ženske, kar sicer ne pomeni, da s(m)o moški brez čustev, ampak se le pogosteje zatekamo v obrambni mehanizem racionaliziranja. Grška mitologija lepo opiše, kaj se zgodi s pretiranim, enostranskim nagibom na razumarstvo - antiseptično premlevanje, intelektualiziranje, analiziranje, dlakocepstvo. Takšni moški se srečajo s sfingo, da jim zastavi zapletene uganke, ki jih ne znajo (raz)rešiti, in jih za kazen zaluča v prepad. Ti moški postanejo mrtvi v simbolnem smislu, izgubijo "dušo", so kot led hladni Sinjebradci, pogubni za (emocionalne) ženske, saj ne premorejo nobene človeške topline in so nesposobni čustvenega povezovanja, kar je ključno za vsak odnos, ne samo v odnosu do partnerja, ampak je še posebej pomembno za odnos na relaciji starš - otrok. 😉
poslano v temi :: Ko izčrpaš možnosti spoznavanja
Leska, kaj ti šepa anglečina in SCIENCE? Tudi tvojemu prevajalnemu prijateljčku ne gre veliko bolje, se zelo muči s slovenščino, ampak po moje je precej boljši kot teoretiki zarot, ki imate narejeno samo OŠ. 🙂
Financial analyst David Martin misrepresents studies and patent applications to promote the baseless claim that SARS-CoV-2 was developed as a bioweapon - Science Feedback
https://science.feedback.org/review/financial-analyst-david-martin-misrepresents-studies-patent-applications-promote-baseless-claim-sars-cov-2-developed-bioweapon/ https://science.feedback.org/review/financial-analyst-david-martin-misrepresents-studies-patent-applications-promote-baseless-claim-sars-cov-2-developed-bioweapon/
Finančni analitik! Krasno, zakaj tudi ne bi družboslovec imel svojega zarotniškega mnenja iz področja, ki mu je španska vas, niti ni ustrezno izobražen, nima kompetenc, skratka na medicino se spozna toliko kot Marica na krive kurce. 🙂
Review
In May 2023, a video featuring financial analyst David Martin went viral on social media platforms, gathering millions of views on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok (examples here, here, here, and here). In it, Martin claimed that SARS-CoV-2 was an act of “premeditated domestic terrorism” and that the virus is a weapon that was engineered through decades of research with the objective of “get[ting] the world to accept a universal vaccine template”.
Martin’s 21-minute speech was only the beginning of a nine-hour event called “International COVID-19 Summit III” that was held in a room of the European Parliament in Brussels on 3 May 2023. As featured speakers, the event gathered a group of well-known COVID-19 misinformation actors, including Robert Malone, Ryan Cole, Byram Bridle, Christian Perronne, and Pierre Kory, president of the fringe medical group Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC).
A three-part video recording of the event was uploaded on Rumble, and video excerpts were widely spread online, aided by anti-vaccine, COVID-19 skeptic, and conspiracy groups and individuals who shared them. Among all the speakers, Martin’s speech attracted much attention online, receiving shares from FLCCC, the conspiracy website Infowars, and the anti-vaccine group Children’s Health Defense, as well as many social media users.
However, Martin’s claims are all unsubstantiated, contain numerous inaccuracies, and are based on a grossly distorted interpretation of historical coronavirus research that we will analyze in detail below.
The place where the summit took place and the summit’s use of the European Parliament’s logo was also misleading, lending a veneer of legitimacy to claims that the speakers had testified to the European Parliament. However, this wasn’t the case. Firstly, the event doesn’t appear in the list of official events on the European Parliament website.
Secondly, the event wasn’t held at the Hemicycle, where the 705 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) gather during plenary sessions. Instead, it took place in one of the rooms available to MEPs, which was possible because the Summit was hosted by five MEPs, Cristian Terhes, Christine Anderson, Ivan Vilibor Sinčić, Francesca Donato, and Mislav Kolakušić, all of them known COVID-19 skeptics.
Thirdly, the European assembly clearly explained to CheckNews—a fact-checking section of the French newspaper Libération—that the European Parliament “didn’t organize or finance” this event, although some MEPs took part, “exercising their freedom of mandate”.
CLAIM 1 (INACCURATE AND MISLEADING):
“coronavirus as a model of a pathogen was isolated in 1965. Coronavirus was identified in 1965 as one of the first infectious replicatable [sic] viral models that could be used to modify a series of other experiences of human condition.”
While it is unclear what Martin meant with “a model of pathogen”, the first coronavirus wasn’t isolated in 1965 but in 1936. That year, Beach and Schalm isolated the pathogen that caused avian bronchitis in newborn chickens, which symptoms had been described five years earlier, and determined that the disease was caused by a virus[1].
It still took 30 years to identify the first human coronavirus, 229E, discovered by Dorothy Hamre at the University of Chicago in 1962 when she analyzed tissue cultures of students with colds[2]. Around the same time, two research teams, one led by David Tyrrell in England and another by Ken McInstosh in the U.S., independently isolated two additional human coronaviruses, called B814 and OC43, respectively[3,4].
However, Martin’s claim that these viruses were immediately identified as a modifiable model is unsubstantiated because at that time, scientists didn’t know that they belonged to the same family. The term coronavirus was only introduced in 1968 when Tyrrell and June Almeida observed the viruses under the electron microscope and found that they all had their surface covered with characteristic spikes that resembled the sun’s corona.
CLAIM 2 (INACCURATE AND MISLEADING):
“in 1966, the very first COV coronavirus model was used as a transatlantic biological experiment in human manipulation”; “And in 1967, the year I was born, we did the first human trials on inoculating people with modified coronavirus”
Martin accompanied these allegations with several scientific references. However, none of the studies he cited support such claims.
The first of those studies was conducted at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and published in 1967—not in 1966, as Martin claimed. In it, McIntosh and colleagues collected nasopharyngeal fluid from NIH employees who had cold symptoms, isolated the viruses in them, and grew these viruses in laboratory cells and tissues[4].
The second study, published by Almeida and Tyrell also in 1967, described a method for detecting viral particles in organ cultures by electron microscopy. The authors observed that the recently identified 229E and B814 viruses were “morphologically identical” to the one that caused avian infectious bronchitis[5].
Finally, Martin cited a third study published by Bradburne, Bynoe, and Tyrell in 1967. This study is the only one that used human volunteers, who were inoculated with Hamre’s 229E virus isolates. The researchers observed that 13 of the 26 inoculated volunteers developed colds, providing the first experimental evidence that the new virus caused this condition[6].
From the information above, it is clear that Martin’s description is quite misleading, and these experiments can hardly be considered “a transatlantic biological experiment in human manipulation”. Furthermore, the claim is also inaccurate because none of these studies involved manipulated viruses.
Health Feedback tried to reach out to Martin for comment through the “Contact Us” section of his company’s (M-MCAM International) website, but the link was unresponsive. We will update this review if new information becomes available.
CLAIM 3 (INCORRECT):
“Ironically, the common cold was turned into a chimera in the 1970s. And in 1975, 1976, and 1977, we started figuring out how to modify coronavirus by putting it into different animals, pigs and dogs.”
This claim demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of what coronaviruses are because it seems to suggest that there is only one coronavirus, that it can only cause colds, and that the only way it can get into animals is by “putting” it there. However, all these implications are incorrect.
The reference Martin cited to support his claim doesn’t show any human manipulation of coronaviruses. On the contrary, it is a 1992 study that used an unmodified rabbit coronavirus occurring in nature to model the disease in rabbits[7]. The researchers isolated the virus from moribund animals and injected it intravenously or intramuscularly in laboratory rabbits, observing that it caused myocarditis. This simple study found that coronavirus infection in rabbits might progress into heart muscle problems.
It is important to note that the term coronavirus doesn’t refer to a single virus as Martin seemed to suggest, but to a large family of viruses comprising more than 40 different viruses. Some of these viruses are specialized in infecting humans, while others specifically target a particular animal, such as dogs, cats, birds, or pigs. While coronavirus infections in humans primarily result in respiratory diseases, in other animals like pigs or dogs, they can cause gastroenteritis or other symptoms.
Hence, there is no link between SARS-CoV-2 and these animal coronaviruses because they are different viruses, each one with different characteristics that aren’t interchangeable.
CLAIM 4 (INCORRECT):
“As a matter of fact, every publication on vaccines for coronavirus from 1990 until 2018, every single publication concluded that coronavirus escapes the vaccine impulse because it modifies and mutates too quickly for vaccines to be effective”
Martin’s claim is false because effective vaccines against coronaviruses were available years before the COVID-19 pandemic for several conditions affecting pets and livestock, as the U.K. Royal Society of Biology explains.
Ian Frazer, an immunologist and emeritus professor at the University of Queensland, told ABC News in 2020 that developing a vaccine against human coronaviruses is so challenging partly because the virus infects the upper respiratory tract. The problem is that the immune system isn’t particularly effective in this region, which means that a response induced by a vaccine will likely miss the target cells.
CLAIM 5 (INACCURATE):
“Dog breeders and pig farmers found that coronavirus created gastrointestinal problems, and that became the basis for Pfizer’s first Spike protein vaccine patent filed”; in 2002, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill patented “an infectious replication defective clone of coronavirus […] Infectious replication defective means a weapon. It means something meant to target an individual but not have collateral damage to other individuals”
Searching patent databases for old applications containing the word coronavirus has proven a prolific source of conspiracy theories, all claiming to have found the smoking gun that the COVID-19 pandemic was planned or SARS-CoV-2 engineered. But as the McGill University’s Office for Science in Society explained in this article, none of these claims have any basis because those patents are unrelated to SARS-CoV-2.
Like many earlier such claims, Martin cited a patent application filed by Pfizer for “the very first spike protein vaccine for coronavirus” in 1990. Indeed, a patent (WO1993023422A1) protected the development of the first vaccine specifically targeting a coronavirus spike protein. However, this patent didn’t involve SARS-CoV-2 or any other human coronavirus. Instead, it targeted a cat coronavirus that caused highly lethal peritonitis in these animals.
Therefore, neither the specific patent nor the general strategy of targeting the spike protein—unsurprising considering that the spike protein forms the distinctive feature of the coronavirus family—suggest in any way that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was engineered, as Martin claimed.
Martin also cited another patent (WO02086068A2), submitted in this case by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2002. Pointing out that this patent “mysteriously preceded SARS 1.0 by a year”, Martin suggested that this research could be the origin of not only SARS-CoV-2 but even the SARS-CoV-1 epidemic. He went even further by claiming that a term included in the patent, “infectious replication-defective clone”, means that the new virus is “a weapon” designed to target certain individuals. This is false.
Replication-defective means that portions of the viral genome essential for forming new viral copies have been removed, resulting in a viral vector that can no longer replicate. These replication-defective viruses are often used to introduce genetic material of interest into target cells by inserting it in the space left by the removal of the replication genes.
Martin wasn’t the first one to point at the patent of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is a bioweapon. But this claim is fundamentally baseless because the patent in question is entirely unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 and refers to a coronavirus that causes gastroenteritis in pigs.
CONCLUSION
In summary, Martin’s speech doesn’t provide the smoking gun for COVID-19 origin that he and others claimed to be. The alleged evidence presented is nothing but a list of misrepresented studies on early coronavirus research and old patent applications on animal coronaviruses all unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 or the COVID-19 pandemic.
None of the cited studies and patents suggests that the virus was engineered. In fact, some of Martin’s claims aren’t even new and have already been debunked. While there are still questions about whether the virus SARS-CoV-2 had infected humans through a naturally-occurring spillover event or a lab leak incident, there is simply no evidence to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 was developed as a bioweapon.
REFERENCES
1 – Beach and Schalm (1936) A Filterable Virus, Distinct from that of Laryngotracheitis, the Cause of a Respiratory Disease of Chicks. Poultry Science.
2 – Hamre et al. (1966) A New Virus Isolated from the Human Respiratory Tract. Experimental Biology and Medicine.
3 – Tyrrell and Bynoe (1965) Cultivation of a Novel Type of Common-cold Virus in Organ Cultures. BMJ.
4 – McIntosh et al (1967) Recovery in tracheal organ cultures of novel viruses from patients with respiratory disease. PNAS.
5 – Almeida and Tyrrell (1967) The Morphology of Three Previously Uncharacterized Human Respiratory Viruses that Grow in Organ Culture Free. Journal of General Virology.
6 – Bradburne et al. (1967) Effects of a ” New ” Human Respiratory Virus in Volunteers. BMJ.
7 – Lorraine et al. (1992) An Experimental Model for Dilated Cardiomyopathy after Rabbit Coronavirus Infection. Journal of Infectious Diseases.
poslano v temi :: SPET BO PLANDEMIJA
@Navajo
Hvala za recepte in izčrpna navodila za rokovanje s pralnim strojem, pardon, z ženskami, pa saj to je isto pri tebi. 😆 Tudi ti nisi kompleksnejši od navadnega toasterja, ta je še celo v prednosti, ker ima dodatno funkcijo za odmrzovanje. 🙂
poslano v temi :: Fantje, za eno pravo se potrudite
Darwin, kritično razmišljanje je potrebno pri vsaki stvari, ki ga ti tako nisi nikoli imel. Na vsako stvar je potrebno gledati iz dveh različnih perspektiv, ne na podlagi odločanja med dvema barvama, bodisi belo ali črno, katera ti je pač bolj všeč. Ampak ti raje nekritično povzemaš, kar ti je ideološko všeč.
Torej resnica je v tvoji majhni, intelektualno zelo omejeni škatlici, to, kar se sklada s tvojo ideologijo - paranoja s teorijo zarot, ki jo goniš tjavendan, ker očitno ne veš, kaj bi s sabo doma pri mamici in s svojim časom, ki ga imaš na pretek, brezposeln, tudi izobražuješ se ne, ampak raje gledaš za lase privlečene youtube štorije, kako nas vlada "zastruplja", farmacija, kako ti bo SOVA doma prisluškovala, ker si tako "politično nevarna" oseba, še posebej, ko ti mama ne umije umazanih gat in ob odprtem straniščnem oknu začneš s svojim sranjem nevarno ogrožati sosede z nevarnimi nevladnimi plini. 🙂
Odbor za pravno etična vprašanja Zdravniške zbornice Slovenije je na 5. in 8. seji dne 11. 8. 2021 in 11. 11. 2021, obravnaval vlogo zoper neprimerne objave zdravnika Sebastjana Piberla, dr. med. vezane na COVID 19, objavljeno dne 12. 5. 2021 na spletni strani Youtoube ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsbsm2H7FXA&t=1240s ), kjer je v intervjuju za Kanal AS Murska Sobota predstavljen kot specialist kvantne medicine podajal dvome v strokovna priporočila in izrecno navajal: Da je smrtnost pri covidu enaka kot pri gripi, da PCR testi niso kredibilnim, izražal mnenje o nekoristnosti oz. celo škodljivosti zaščitnih mask in primerjal cepljenje proti covidu z dejanji v koncentracijskih taboriščih ter na 8. seji sprejel naslednje sklepe:
Sklep 5/8/2021: OPEV ugotavlja, da je Sebastijan Piberl, dr. med. kršil 1. člena Kodeksa zdravniške etike (Kodeks), saj pri svojih izvajanjih v pogovorni oddaji ni upošteval znanstvenih in strokovnih dognanj sodobne medicine, ko je navajal, da je smrtnost pri COVID 19 enaka kot pri gripi, da PCR testi niso kredibilni, da je uporaba zaščitnih mask nekoristna oz. celo škodljiva in z nerazumevanjem bistva cepljenja. S tem je kršil tudi svojo dolžnost iz 11. člena Kodeksa, saj o ukrepih priporočenih zaradi zaščite drugih (ukrepi javnega zdravja), pacientov ni poučil na korekten način in ni ukrepal skladno z zakonsko obvezo in kršil tudi 37. člen Kodeksa saj ni spodbujal javnega zdravja z ustreznim izobraževanjem. Z vsem zgoraj naštetim in s primerjanjem cepljenja proti COVID 19 z dejanji v koncentracijskih taboriščih je kršil 61. člen Kodeksa in je s svojim neustreznim, lahkomiselnim in za zdravnika nečastnim dejanjem prizadel tudi druge zdravnike in zdravstveno osebje ter zdravstvo v celoti.
Obrazložitev sklepa 5/8/2021: Pri oceni kršitev je OPEV upošteval izjave Sebastjana Piberla, dr. med v pogovorni oddaji na televiziji AS. V tej oddaji ga voditelj naslavlja s specialistom kvantne medicine. V nadaljevanju pogovora Sebastjan Piberel, dr. med, navaja celo vrsto neresnic v povezavi z virusom Sars-Cov-2 in epidemijo covid-19. Trdi, da je smrtnost pri Covid-19 0,8 % in nič drugačna kot pri gripah (7:29 minuta). Trdi, da so PCR testi absolutno nekredibilni za ugotavljanje bolezni covid-19 (14:25 minuta). V nadaljevanju izraža dvom v ukrepe proti zamejitvi epidemije covid-19, ko pove, da naj bi bil covid »tržna niša« in so zato vsi postali asimptomatski prenašalci (15:20 minuta). Po njegovem mnenju to ne more biti razlog, da nekoga »zapreš v hišo, da mu nabiješ na nos in usta masko, ker to še ne pomeni, da bo nekdo zbolel« (15:55 minuta). V delu pogovora, ki se nanaša na zdravljenje bolnikov s covid-19 trdi, da bi se s kombinacijo zdravil lahko dokazano zmanjšalo števil hospitalizacij za 70 % (22:29 minuta). Med slednjimi našteje hidroksiklorokin (23:06 minuta) in cink (23:46 minuta), ki naj bi zavirala replikacijo virusa ter azitromicin (24:16 minuta), doksiciklin in druge širokospektralne antibiotike (24:39 minuta). Tovrstna zdravila naj bi po njegovih navedbah skupaj v sinergiji pomagala pacientom, da ne zbolijo zaradi težav, ki jih povzroča virus covid-19 (25:03 minuta). Trdi tudi, da bi s temi zdravili lahko za 70 % zmanjšali obolevnost ali število pacientov (27:55 minuta). Ko govori o zaščitnih maskah, trdi, da z vsako masko pade procent kisika v krvi (30:53 minuta). Nošenje mask povezuje z hipoksijo in motnjami v acidobaznem ravnotežju (31:40 minuta), ki da bo pri osebah, ki nosijo maske 8 ur na dan, povzročilo osteoporozo, kar se bo pokazalo na dolgi rok (32:30 minuta). Trdi (splošno), da maske ne zadržujejo virusov in da virusi letijo na vse smeri, kot, da je ne bi imeli (33:50 minuta). Trdi tudi, da so cepiva čista genska manipulacija (41:33 minuta), vrhunska genska terapija (47:55 minuta), epigenetika (47:59 minuta). Trdi, da pride ob ponovni okužbi do citokinske nevihte pogosteje pri cepljenih kot pri necepljenih (46:44 minuta). Trdi, da je nedopustno, neetično in v nasprotju z »vsemi deklaracijami in moralno-etičnimi normami«, da nekoga »preventivno cepiš« proti bolezni (48:10 minuta), za katero bo morda zbolel in da so to nazadnje delali v drugi svetovni vojni v koncentracijskih taboriščih (48:25 minuta). Da ima Švedska (52:23 minuta) najbolj realno in eksaktno vodeno statistiko, s katero so ves čas dokazovali, da je to navadna gripa, da so rezultati umrljivosti primerljivi z navadno gripo, nič bolj infektivna, nič bolj hitro šireča se. Z naštetimi navedbami je Sebastjan Piberl, dr.med. kršil Kodeks zdravniške etike, kot je to ugotovljeno s sklepom.
Sklep 6/8/2021: OPEV v načelnem mnenju meni, da je grožnja kolegu, ki opozori na domnevno neetično ravnanje drugega kolega nedopustna. Sklep se objavi.
OPEV je zadevo predal v obravnavo tožilcu.
poslano v temi :: DIGITALIZACIJA komentar Dr. Piberla
Darmund, tale ima isto narcisistično potrebo po pozornosti, videnosti in "gurujski slavi", kakor ti, samo da je lahko veliko bolj škodljiv, ker ima precej več v glavi. Kumunistično Kitajsko primerjat s Slovenijo, je 75 let za časom, ki nas povede v takratno Jugoslavijo, pa še vedno ni bil tako strog nadzor države nad svoboščinami, ki so nam sedaj samoumevne.
https://www.zdravniskazbornica.si/informacije-publikacije-in-analize/obvestila/2021/12/02/sebastijan-piberl-dr.-med.-je-kr%C5%A1il-kodeks-zdravni%C5%A1ke-etike https://www.zdravniskazbornica.si/informacije-publikacije-in-analize/obvestila/2021/12/02/sebastijan-piberl-dr.-med.-je-kršil-kodeks-zdravniške-etike
poslano v temi :: DIGITALIZACIJA komentar Dr. Piberla
Rdeča mi je bila, ko sem bil še majhen, pa nisem punčka. 🙂
poslano v temi :: Katera je vaša najljubša barva?
Ženskam ni za verjet na lepe oči, ampak vam verjamemo samo na lepe joške.
Kaj čemo, malo več mleka popit, da jih napolnite, morda bodo potem ravno pravšnje za na razstavo.
poslano v temi :: Modrc
POZOR, ženske! Navajo spada med 5% alfa moških, tako kot Trump. Oba brez najmanjših težav dobita potrdilo pri psihiatru, v kolikor kdo slučajno dvomi v njuno imenitnost, vseznalstvo, posebnost, pomembnost in vse ostale pritekline narcisoidne osebnostne motnje. 😆
Če hočete moškega "alfo" ala Navajo, ki ima toliko emocionalne kapacitete, kakor bukov štor, je idealen za vas, da vam zaj*** življenje, travmatizira otroke in popolnoma uniči družino. Se že postavljajo v vrsto ženske z nizko samopodobo in nizkimi kriteriji za moške, morda materialistke, če imaš denar, da jih osrečijo dnevne doze tvojega trotlevanja glede lastne samopomembnosti. 😉
poslano v temi :: Fantje, za eno pravo se potrudite
Dame, kakšne dokaze lahko predložite? Na slepo nič ne verjamemo. Verjetno nekatere bolj tehtne, druge manj, tretje pa viseče dokaze. 😆
poslano v temi :: Modrc |
poslano v temi :: Zdravniki postali demoni