Ohh well, I guess I will have to keep trying with your weekly giveaways :)

Agreed, and that gives it some utility in scientific or industrial sectors, but not on someone's ring finger to waggle at the Joneses. The main thing rep does here is give people something to abuse and other's to get upset about. Bleh, I say.

All I did was call out your misinterpretations, I mean they were really obvious, so maybe that was rude of me? I just said I have fun discussing with you. You took that as proof that I am a troll and that the accounts/hours mixup was deliberate.
How about we talk about that, why would I deliberately try to replace hours with accounts? Because 100 accounts isnt crazy enough already? Because nobody would notice the huge difference between 100 hours and accounts? Ridiculous that you still think so. Thats even more ridiculous than your other crazy theory.

All the outstanding ones will be drawn soon so good luck!

It's not. A well written script should be able to do 5 accounts and derep 10 posts per account per minute, assuming you have the bandwidth and latency to support it. If you don't have it, let's assume 1 account per minute.
For 5 accounts you need (at most) 5 minutes of run time for the script, for 100 accounts you need a bit less than two hours. Combine that with any other activity, and the number of accounts for derepping does become irrelevant, especially if a higher amount of accounts make a more noticeable hit, and a more difficult to recover one as well.
Hell, I think the 1 account per minute (and 10-20 derreped posts) should be doable manually as well, so you just need someone with a bit of time on their hands. And 2 hours is time usually available, especially for "revenge".

And that journey of a thousand miles would begin with a single step.

Oh please, now you too come up with wild shit to prove one thing I said theoretically wrong. So you made this post "It's not." to show that I deliberately changed 100 accounts to 100 hours because secretly I knew it does make a difference? Because that is what was talked about.

What is this "wild shit" I came up with? The time it takes to make an account? The time it takes to refresh a page, sending the data again? Or the fact that it can be automated?
Please, enlighten me. Or if you'd like, I could do a proof of concept later on. I won't mess with rep, and I will give you a good estimate of how many accounts can be made in an hour.

If you need a guideline, you should get 150-200 per hour without any automation.

My idea for a proof of concept would be to make a new wishlist entry, then start voting for it with new accounts. Even assuming half the votes were cast by other users, it should give a good estimate of how many accounts can be made in an hour to vote for something. Adding extra tabs for more posts shouldn't be that big of a problem.

Well I would be interested in seeing the result of this, if only to see how fast/slow I manually made accounts in comparison :P

That assumes I have a script setup for creating accounts, which I don't (no use atm). So I would be also doing it manually, but a comparison between two people would make sense I guess.

A comparison between 2 people doing it manually is what I meant :)

An account creating script would be closer to 100 accounts per minute anyway, I don't think we can compete with that, even working together :P

We have a human reference : If TinyE's rep reaches 200, then it means evil hell-reppers really slowed the pace of their mischievous craft.