That
>Bruce Lee was 5'6
>Al Pacino is 5'7
>Eazy-E was 5'2
>Aristotle, 5'5
>Jet Li, 5'6
The problem is not you being a manlet
The problem is that you're a little bitch looking for excuses
>The problem is not you being a manlet
yes, the problem is that you're not famous
>>29599617
ty lone ranger of this sad place.
>>29599644
Nobody is born famous Anon
These men got famous because they exceed in their areas of choice, and got recognition out of that
bumpin down the street in my 64
>>29599617
>Bruce Lee was 5'6
5'7
>Eazy-E was 5'2
5'5
>Aristotle, 5'5
Poor example because he lived in a period where 5'4 was the average.
That being said, I agree with your main point. My 'tism just gets super-triggered my minor mistakes.
>>29600575
Actually, I just looked it up and Eazy-E was 5'3. Google used to put him at 5'5. I feel stupid now.
>>29600575
Bruce Lee was 5'6, and I don't get why sites say 5'7. 1,71 converts to 5'6 for what I've seen, but either way, still under 5'8
>>29600605
No way in hell 1,59 would be 5'5
>I'm not famous
>The girls they fucked didn't have Tinder
5'6" is the actual superior height for a man, all people taller than this are too tall.
>>29600616
>1,71 converts to 5'6 for what I've seen
It converts to 5.6 feet, which is 5'7.5. 5'6 is 5.5 (5 and a half) feet. The difference between the decimal and apostrophe is a subtle but crucial one.
Little man's syndrome
>>29599617
>>Bruce Lee was 5'6
>>Al Pacino is 5'7
>>Eazy-E was 5'2
>>Aristotle, 5'5
>>Jet Li, 5'6
>they are also all millionaires
>>29600829
>Eazy E
>Aristotle
Millionaires
What?
>>29600829
Aristotle was also living like 3000 years ago where the only thing that mattered is if you lived past the age of 10.
>>29599644
Bruce already had a wife before he became famous
