I had the courtesy not to attribute you negative intentions, and not to charge you of any accusations beside of that of being misleading in your way of reporting things (which is true and backed by facts).
It seems that you do not have the same principles...
So, you charge me, off the top of your head, of "altering times to fit my theory"?
First which theory?
Now that you said that I have a "theory that you have something to hide", please quote any of my answers that proves your claim.
The theory that I have something to hide.
You haven't quoted anything though.
Half of "what I said" are quotations from you, and the rest are flat comments on the facts.
If reading this thead gives you a feeling that there is a "theory that you have something to hide", it must be coming from your own quotations.
Second which timestamps?
I am not claiming that the timestamps are perfectly accurate because, the first thread being locked, I had to do manual quotations which is error prone (regeneration of epoch timestamps from the dates).
But at any rate, I strongly doubt that this would change in any way any of the facts reported earlier.
I you disagree, please give an example of inaccurate timestamp, and show how correcting it makes any of what I said invalid.
I already gave you an example of inaccurate time stamps. You claim that I waited an entire day to clarify that the first "test" was not in the DC, when in fact it was less than 15 minutes and the next post that I made that clarified that fact. Post 891 - 893 I believe, but I don't have the time to check those post numbers at the moment. I will when I get back.
Where did I comment on the duration between your posts?
If I am not making any comments on this point, I don't see how that could be serving anything at all.
Your answer is so full of hot air that I just don't know what to tell you.
There is only one objective truth, and it is made of facts.
As a trusted third party mandated to verify the facts, when to comment and what to tell should have been obvious to you.
And how is this full of hot air? People bitch when I backup BFL's statements with my observations and opinions - somehow this makes me a shill. People bitch when I don't comment on BFL's statements, somehow this translates as me being misleading or having something to hide. WTF, seriously? How am I suppose to cater to that?
Pick on, pick the other. I don't care. I will do either, but I physically can not do both.
It is not as simple as a black and white answer "comment / no comment" "good / not good".
If you comment to give credit to BFL without supporting evidence, or you omit to comment when BFL makes wild claims (that appear later to be unfounded) where they cite you as a witness, you are not being neutral.
This is what people challenge you on. Be neutral, stick to hard facts, learn to receive feedback instead of dodging it and taking it personnaly, and people won't have a say.
Whether this translates in making comments or not making comments isn't the problem.
Anyway this is going nowhere : we are going round in circles.
The longer it gets, the more that makes you look like a martyr, and me like a troll, so I am done with this debate.
If you don't think that your reports are misleading, so be it.
All the raw facts are here in this thead for people to make their own opinion.