tag+: Interesting, but why do you insist in not including the person in concern?
foad01: The examples I gave speak for themselves.
tag+: And how this reply of yours relate to me?
Don't deflect my inclusion on your theory Oh... & share how you coin it, because "amazeballs" frankly sounds dumb
foad01: I just gave another example to what I wrote. It is not a theory. It is THAT obvious. Other users can start now their own research and they will find more examples.
I totally disagree, you are not innocently giving ,,examples,,
to let (quoting you)
"users can start now their own research and they will find more examples" What you are doing IN MY OPINION is:
-An attempt of manipulation/rumor
-An attempt of defame
-Being insidious
-Seed baseless doubt/fear/paranoia/antagonism
BASED ON:
-Your coward omission of the subjects of your ,,examples,,
-Your weak/strawman ,,examples,,
-You not providing the methods to replicate the exact find of your ,,examples,,
Because that would expose that you picked the targets!
-You are not providing EVIDENCE BUT SPECULATION
-By not aiming for a constructive discussion. SURE! Prove me wrong PLEASE
Your amazeballs are so weak that 2 replies later you totally avoided to especifically probe why you included me on your sh*t My final word to you: Bozo!
Thanks for providing a whole precedent
And where the f*ck are the moderators?
RETHORICAL QUESTION!