Is it better for the enemy to be similar, or is it better to be completely different?

Knowing that he is irreversibly moving in the direction of "sentimentality", the charter is still more disgusted with the meaningless questions above.

Obviously neither is good.

Enemy, enemy-man.

Since it is an enemy, it is impossible to weaken it to the point of "relative stance."

And the latter "person" is mostly above the definition of "intelligent life".

To put it simply,

handful

enemy

As

Intelligent beings who can communicate

At the same time, this person must have been stunned.

Is it better for the enemy to be similar, or is it better to be completely different?

Knowing that he is irreversibly moving in the direction of "sentimentality", the charter is still more disgusted with the meaningless questions above.

Obviously neither is good.

Enemy, enemy-man.

Since it is an enemy, it is impossible to weaken it to the point of "relative stance."

And the latter "person" is mostly above the definition of "intelligent life".

To put it simply,

handful

enemy

As

Intelligent beings who can communicate

At the same time, this person must have been stunned.

Is it better for the enemy to be similar, or is it better to be completely different?

Knowing that he is irreversibly moving in the direction of "sentimentality", the charter is still more disgusted with the meaningless questions above.

Obviously neither is good.

Enemy, enemy-man.

Since it is an enemy, it is impossible to weaken it to the point of "relative stance."

And the latter "person" is mostly above the definition of "intelligent life".

To put it simply,

handful

enemy

As

Intelligent beings who can communicate

At the same time, this person must have been stunned.

Is it better for the enemy to be similar, or is it better to be completely different?

Knowing that he is irreversibly moving in the direction of "sentimentality", the charter is still more disgusted with the meaningless questions above.

Obviously neither is good.

Enemy, enemy-man.

Since it is an enemy, it is impossible to weaken it to the point of "relative stance."

And the latter "person" is mostly above the definition of "intelligent life".

To put it simply,

handful

enemy

As

Intelligent beings who can communicate

At the same time, this person must have been stunned.

Is it better for the enemy to be similar, or is it better to be completely different?

Knowing that he is irreversibly moving in the direction of "sentimentality", the charter is still more disgusted with the meaningless questions above.

Obviously neither is good.

Enemy, enemy-man.

Since it is an enemy, it is impossible to weaken it to the point of "relative stance."

And the latter "person" is mostly above the definition of "intelligent life".

To put it simply,

handful

enemy

As

Intelligent beings who can communicate

At the same time, this person must have been stunned.

Is it better for the enemy to be similar, or is it better to be completely different?

Knowing that he is irreversibly moving in the direction of "sentimentality", the charter is still more disgusted with the meaningless questions above.

Obviously neither is good.

Enemy, enemy-man.

Since it is an enemy, it is impossible to weaken it to the point of "relative stance."

And the latter "person" is mostly above the definition of "intelligent life".

To put it simply,

handful

enemy

As

Intelligent beings who can communicate

At the same time, this person must have been stunned.

Is it better for the enemy to be similar, or is it better to be completely different?

Knowing that he is irreversibly moving in the direction of "sentimentality", the charter is still more disgusted with the meaningless questions above.

Obviously neither is good.

Enemy, enemy-man.

Since it is an enemy, it is impossible to weaken it to the point of "relative stance."

And the latter "person" is mostly above the definition of "intelligent life".

To put it simply,

handful

enemy

As

Intelligent beings who can communicate

At the same time, this person must have been stunned.

Is it better for the enemy to be similar, or is it better to be completely different?

Knowing that he is irreversibly moving in the direction of "sentimentality", the charter is still more disgusted with the meaningless questions above.

Obviously neither is good.

Enemy, enemy-man.

Since it is an enemy, it is impossible to weaken it to the point of "relative stance."

And the latter "person" is mostly above the definition of "intelligent life".

To put it simply,

handful

enemy

As

Intelligent beings who can communicate

At the same time, this person must have been stunned.

Is it better for the enemy to be similar, or is it better to be completely different?

Knowing that he is irreversibly moving in the direction of "sentimentality", the charter is still more disgusted with the meaningless questions above.

Obviously neither is good.

Enemy, enemy-man.

Since it is an enemy, it is impossible to weaken it to the point of "relative stance."

And the latter "person" is mostly above the definition of "intelligent life".

To put it simply,

handful

enemy

As

Intelligent beings who can communicate

At the same time, this person must have been stunned.

Is it better for the enemy to be similar, or is it better to be completely different?

Knowing that he is irreversibly moving in the direction of "sentimentality", the charter is still more disgusted with the meaningless questions above.

Obviously neither is good.

Enemy, enemy-man.

Since it is an enemy, it is impossible to weaken it to the point of "relative stance."

And the latter "person" is mostly above the definition of "intelligent life".

To put it simply,

handful

enemy

As

Intelligent beings who can communicate

At the same time, this person must have been stunned.

Is it better for the enemy to be similar, or is it better to be completely different?

Knowing that he is irreversibly moving in the direction of "sentimentality", the charter is still more disgusted with the meaningless questions above.

Obviously neither is good.

Enemy, enemy-man.

Since it is an enemy, it is impossible to weaken it to the point of "relative stance."

And the latter "person" is mostly above the definition of "intelligent life".

To put it simply,

handful

enemy

As

Intelligent beings who can communicate

At the same time, this person must have been stunned.

Is it better for the enemy to be similar, or is it better to be completely different?

Knowing that he is irreversibly moving in the direction of "sentimentality", the charter is still more disgusted with the meaningless questions above.

Obviously neither is good.

Enemy, enemy-man.

Since it is an enemy, it is impossible to weaken it to the point of "relative stance."

And the latter "person" is mostly above the definition of "intelligent life".

To put it simply,

handful

enemy

As

Intelligent beings who can communicate

At the same time, this person must have been stunned.

Is it better for the enemy to be similar, or is it better to be completely different?

Knowing that he is irreversibly moving in the direction of "sentimentality", the charter is still more disgusted with the meaningless questions above.

Obviously neither is good.

Enemy, enemy-man.

Since it is an enemy, it is impossible to weaken it to the point of "relative stance."

And the latter "person" is mostly above the definition of "intelligent life".

To put it simply,

handful

enemy

As

Intelligent beings who can communicate

At the same time, this person must have been stunned.