All you do is blurt out whatever comes up in your head without any coherent relationship to the arguments being presented.
Says the person who has not yet provided one shred of evidence to back up his claims, verses valid, technical and practical demonstrations of where you are wrong.
On every single point you have made, there have been a half dozen explanations of varying degrees of complexity explaining how far off the mark you are. You, in a display of cognitive dissonance that almost classes as art have as rebuttals provided a graphic showing signal bounce, a brochure, and the all time funny of accusing people of being biased/lacking objectivity/emotionally unstable/insane.
Your argument is just as good as the following argument against you:
And thus, leander is proven to be a monkey who randomly logged into Amiga.org by randomly pressing the correct keystrokes.
This is a strawman (like every other accusation you've leveled at others, you failed to correctly use it ^ that is a classic strawman).
See, the difference is that I can (and have) back my arguments up. And my point that you ignored, (I'm past thinking that you are actually capable of taking in anything that doesn't automatically agree with you) was that even on basic observation, you failed.
With this in mind, how can anything else you say be taken seriously when you fail to cope even with the basics?
