>>121038665>The funny thing is that you may be trying to be a little honest, though not enough to admit what you're talking about.What does this mean? I think you do such a bad job of defending John that it backfires and incriminates him further. Your constant spaghetti spilling creates a spectacle that gets the attention of people who otherwise would have no interest in John K's history of fucking up. Seriously, think about it from the perspective of a completely neutral observer: they're seeing two sides of an argument, pro-John and anti-John. Pro-John is a namefag who's been doxed and revealed to be an actual numaIe, complete with that soiface grin. Meanwhile, the anti-John side is dabbing on the namefag and having a good time.
Who do you think the neutral observer is going to side with? Really, I'm saying this in good faith: stop posting. Stop defending John. For his sake, stop defending him. You aren't helping him.
