Don't be lazy...

I'm not repeating myself infinitely because you don't like the answer.

You and Mr. OG seem to post together...

I explained my feedback many times.  You don't like it, so you keep asking again. 

From what I could see through all this 5 years of accusation, there's only debate and insults happening without proper evidences. It could have been resolved if @TECSHARE compile evidences, arguments, and statements that might help with his campaign in a single post. How about you compile it in the first page? Even I don't have time to go page to page just to read this but I had to read this for the sake of context (takes time/days but this thread is a fun read lol). It's not helping your cause.

I'm not against anyone here. If you guys really want to finish this. Then give and compile concrete evidences so that theymos can look into this much easier. Imagine 5 years of debate and still not a single thing happening.

Like give examples, screenshots, quotes, or anything that might help everyone here.

From what I can see, this will never end.

It's not a debate.  Techy is a troll.  He changes his position and demands as the situation changes.  I have never abused my position on default trust, as evidenced by never having been removed from it. 

Great. Please quote.

i remember these as a kid, are any cards valuable, they had recently released a eos on chain set I think

Energy is absorbed. Oxygen properties are unchanged.

It doesn't change chemical properties of oxygen. So much for "factual investigation" if the first randomly picked sentence turned out to be false.


https://lmgtfy.com/?q=5G+conspiracy+theories+debunked&s=d

You must be new to the Internet.

Great. Please quote.

More deflection...

Vod’s fantasies about me have turned homoerotic.  We all knew it was coming.  The death threat is probably uncalled for though considering what a bitch he is.  I wonder if this was another drunk post or if he’s stroking out again.

It should also be noted that what Vod did also qualifies as harassment under Canadian law.

"The Criminal Harassment section of the Criminal Code of Canada states:

264. (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

Prohibited conduct

(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of

(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;

(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;

(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

Punishment

(3) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

As can be seen, sub-sections 2 (a), (c) and (d) describe rather obvious forms of prohibited conduct—stalking and threatening behaviour. However, the vast majority of charges laid under this section of the Criminal Code are under 2 (b) and deal with a much more subtle issue–persistent communication with another individual. Cary Grant and Christian Grey beware.

In our age of the internet and ubiquitous smartphones, instant and whimsical communication is easy. But take heed; one too many emails, texts, or facebook messages can land a jilted lover or persistent suitor in criminal trouble.

So when does unwanted communication become criminal? In fact, section 264 (2) (b) of the Code has quite precise requirements before proof can be found. Based on the legislation and its interpretation by the courts, the following must be shown to establish the elements of criminal harassment by communication:

The communication must be repetitive (however, this has been interpreted by the courts to mean simply more than one occasion of communication).

The target of the communication must be harassed (a definition of harassment often quoted with approval by Canadian courts is “The complainant must be more than vexed, disquieted or annoyed by the prohibited conduct. The Crown must demonstrate that the complainant was tormented, troubled, worried continually or chronically, plagued, bedeviled and badgered”—note the use of the disjunctive “or”).

The defendant must know that the complainant is harassed (on the other hand, keep in mind that such knowledge need not be proven by direct evidence; the necessary knowledge on the part of the defendant may be inferred from the circumstances of the communication and may include reference to the nature of the relationship prior to the conduct that forms the basis of the charge).

The conduct complained of must cause the complainant to fear for his or her safety or the safety of anyone known to him or her (once again, the caveat in point 3 above also applies here—the necessary fear may be inferred from the context in which the communication takes place including the history of the relationship between the parties)."

https://davidgbayliss.com/criminal-harassment-canada/

I've justified it to the 99.9%.  I can't spend all my time on the special needs 0.1%.  :/

I think you take criticism very poorly.

Notice how Dr. Techy ignores my comments, then complains when I do the same to him?

Imagine complaining about something for a decade...

There's actually considerable overlap in the delusional qualities of schizophrenics and those with Paranoid Personality Disorder. Speaking of the latter, here is a list of some of their characteristics:

• Doubt the commitment, loyalty, or trustworthiness of others, believing others are exploiting or deceiving them.
• Are unforgiving and hold grudges.
• Are hypersensitive and take criticism poorly.
• Read hidden meanings in the innocent remarks or casual looks of others.
• Perceive attacks on their character that are not apparent to others; they generally react with anger and are quick to retaliate.
• Cannot see their role in problems or conflicts, believing they are always right.
• Have difficulty relaxing.
• Are hostile, stubborn, and argumentative.

It's almost like 90% of somebody's presence on this forum (won't say who) is guided by a pathological state of mind.