"Someone" Tweeted:
A man with strong habits, ambition, & a grounded woman can’t be stopped.

"Whoever" Replied:
Attempting to stop men with strong habits, ambition, & grounded women is nothing but negative drama enacted by bad actors who're usually in the bad habit of acting as if all are equal, & acting as if everyone is equal ruins discipline while promoting the creation of factions. But triumph in human affairs, especially romantic ones like what's obtainable with a grounded woman, forges stronger bonds than superficial friendliness, & such triumph stems from strict discipline, training, & ruthlessly high standards that the shenanigans of bad actors cannot bring them close to abiding by. On the basis of their inability to comply to those standards, they become readily obvious for what they usually are: role players who assume diverse personalities to accomplish one goal or the other.

The greatest of all actors can be said to be the devil himself, who, having assumed the personality of a serpent, so excellently deployed the subtlety that chiefly characterizes the serpent to cajole Eve into deeming herself to be equals with her creator. That was indeed bad acting by the serpent, notwithstanding the fact that it achieved its desired aim, & that's definitely because Adam, though having been God's first creation, cannot be said to have inculcated strong habits into his being as at when the devil acquainted himself with him. Eve, on the other hand, obviously wasn't grounded because, had she been, she'd have known better than to warm up to a stranger her husband hadn't mentioned to her...not to mention envisioning herself as fit to be equals with God.

As for ambition, well, there wasn't that much of any endeavor for them to have been ambitous over. So the additional quality of ambition to strong habits & solid grounding really comes in handy in the present generation where there are ADAMs & EVEs who'd make sure to give the devil a bad run for daring to infiltrate their personal spaces with apostate philosopies & non-poetic justice. Worst case scenario, the womanly virtues of gentleness & compassion could see twenty-first century devils exploiting their store of human compassion to rope them into schemes that aren't in conformity to acceptable modus operandis. But it all gets busted when such schemes are extended to ambitious men with strong habits who wouldn't entertain womanly dramas of mundane women with poor grounding.

There's an account of arty ambitious bachelors with strong habits who, alongside equally arty & ambitious but grounded bachelorettes, extended the performance aspect of their art beyond religious stages to encyclopedic stages where they could give free rein to their ambition. Their strong habits, ambition, & solid grounding, which had been alien to all & sudry despite their many displays on religious stages, quickly became evident the moment they mounted encyclopedic stages to canvas for roles that would have them assume diverse personalities to accomplish one goal or the other in what would be positive dramas enacted by good actors who're usually in the habit of disolving factions, promoting strict discipline & training, while seeing to the establishment of high standards.

What they foremost became notable for, was that, they, though acknowledging Adam & Eve as their first parents, wouldn't in the least bit take after Adam & Eve as regards entertaining devils in their Eden. Firstly, only mounting an encyclopedic stage to canvas for roles, they, as though in an actual performance, assumed personalities that saw them dropping good science on audiences which got audiences thinking. As yet, the account that audiences held of what ensued in Eden—was the conventional story of how Satan played a fast one on Eve & got Eve to extend the game to Adam, which Adam fell flat for. But the bachelors & bachelorettes made an exposé of what ensued in Eden to have been a line of event that—in modern times—is grandly branded witchcraft. They'd thus dialogued:

-----
BACHELORS
The man & his wife were both naked but weren't ashamed. If there are couples who are ashamed of each other, or one party ashamed of the other party, then both or either of them has been bewitched & seen his or her unclothedness. Not wanting what he or she has seen & is ashamed of his or her partner also seeing, they hide or try to rope their partners into it as well. Has it ever occurred to you that the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good & evil could have been bewitchment? The Lord commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good & evil you shall not eat...for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. They’ve been telling us to die. So, when they tell us to die for our own supposed good, they're simply telling us to eat from that tree, get bewitched, & die...since the bible says that thou shalt not suffer a witch [or wizard] to live? Yet the same people wouldn't let us eat from that tree & die, since, though there's bewitchment & death as consequence, a sort of pleasure preceeds eating it? So they selfishly savor fruits of that tree daily...no wonder they're all dead!

BACHELORETTES
So, when Satan asked Eve if God really said they shouldn't eat of every tree in the garden, he was actually asking her if God actually enjoined her & Adam to take heed lest they get bewitched? & Eve affirmed that God indeed enjoned her & Adam to take heed lest they get bewitched? Who, then, is urging us to get bewitched? The serpent? In this century, wouldn’t that verdict be understood to mean that God ordered the couple to have no ties with bewitched folks or anything that reeks of bewitchment? Which, in relationship context, would mean to have no romantic ties with the bewitched?

BACHELORS
So it’s women who’ve been bewitched by serpents that are trying to also get us bewitched? How about now that we turn out to not be Adam? Now we understand the manner of persuasion Eve deployed to lure Adam into eating that fruit because we’re experiencing it right about now! Again, between Jacob enriching himself with Laban's wealth & becoming wealthier than Laban & Rachel stealing Laban's household gods to elope with Jacob to possibly punish her father for having shortchanged her loving husband, which likely caused Laban more pain? Because those would be the primary consequences of his shortchanging Jacob & turning his darling Rachel into a second wife. We seem to think that losing his household gods caused him more pain because his wealth continued. What do you girls think?

BACHELORETTES
Rachel couldn't differentiate between a religious call & a business call. That was why, upon her darling Jacob receiving a business call via the agency of an angel & following suit, she got religious with her father’s household idols which would certainly have gotten Jacob's entire lineage bewitched if Jacob's proximity with God hadn't seen him keenly ensuring an excommunication of all ungodly utensils. Persons should learn to differentiate between religious & business calls so that, knowing the difference, one doesn't take the wrong calls at the expense of the right calls.
-----

The bachelors, dissecting religious & business calls, had identified business calls with passion & religious calls with impulses, which, so surprisingly, turned out to be bewitchment. Their words had been: "religious calls have to do with impulses while business calls have to do with passion. Passion is too known for what it is. But no be impulse be the werey wey dey disguise since? No be impulse be feelings? & they, whose endeavors revolve around impulses, dare put it to us that they hate feelings? & then ask for us to come get those feelings from them in exchange for our composure? & that's supposed to be because they love us? No wonder smug soon-to-be-married women like them aren't to be trusted. In consciously tilting towards impulses & getting bewitched, they make themselves not worth chasing after & then worry that suitors will consider them not worth chasing after. As for business calls, the worth of money is not in its possession but in its use."

The bachelorettes, true to their firm grounding & propensity toward being perfect matches for ambitious bachelors with strong habits, expressed their disapproval of unambitious men with weak habits & uncomely women with no solid grounding. As if airing a grievance, they bemoaned: "we bet you wouldn’t say the same about us lovers. We warm up to our sweethearts with deep understanding. But what do we get in return? Though the bible says that wisdom is the principal thing, it further stresses that it is understanding that keeps. Therefore, in all thy getting, get understanding. Why does it seem like certain lots don't want men being kept...by not wanting them relishing our understanding? Who are the ones antagonistic to men relishing our understanding? Are two no longer better than one? Or, is this us being what they refer to—as clingy? Doesn’t that suppose that we are two opposing magnets? Incapable of being in the same room without drawing together? Competency with portable shelters is the way to do it. No wonder security outposts come in handy for the homeless. Nevertheless, who’s trying to associate us to such outposts when we can brag of homes? To such people it's about reliving the past from birth to the present moment which should end in an affair, specifically with women who’ve helped men to relive that past by shielding them against interferences that would have hampered a successful reliving of that past. It's supposed to be love stories. But that of these bachelors have been hate & near death stories. Who're the ladies at the end of those stories? Because it definitely isn’t us, as can be attested of. If baseness attracts everybody & they're putting it to us that we’re base, how come we are nowhere near anybody?"

The ambitiousness of those bachelors with strong habits which saw them migrating from religious stages to encyclopedic stages to canvas for acting roles, further saw them advancing from merely being good actors to becoming famed & enriched playwrights whose plays could be read in more than one way. They ended up bosses, & like it's said, "if you are the boss, they'll mimic your ideas." Having gotten together with grounded women who contributed immensely to their growth & advancement, they couldn't be stopped...especially with the women always treating them to monitions like:

"no good can ever come from divided leadership. If ever offered positions in which you’ll have to share command, turn it down, for the enterprise will fail & you'll be held responsible. Better to take lower positions & let others have the job. It’s always wise, however, to take advantage of opponents' faulty command structure. Never be intimidated by an alliance of forces against you. If they share leadership & are ruled by committees, your advantage is more than enough. In fact, do like Napoleon: seek enemies with that kind of command structure. That way, you can't fail to win."

Those women turned out being like the famed Ireland-born dancer, Lola Montez, who, as far back as 1840-1845, is known to have attracted men with her wiles. Nonetheless, it is attested of her that her power over men went beyond the sexual. Woe betide women who hold the conviction that a woman's power over men can't go beyond the sexual! Wasn't it through the force of Lola's character that she kept her lovers enthralled? Isn’t it the same of smashing grounded women who, by the side of ambitious men with strong habits, render those men unstoppable? May everyone find this instructive so that—if bad actors—with their bad habits, attempt enacting negative drama aimed at ambitious men with strong habits & grounded women, they'd ensure to keep a safe distance from all such drama.

Trust me, I didn't read a single paragraph

TheGoodFellow:
Trust me, I didn't read a single paragraph

Really?