Blind test: we have a volunteer!!!

[amirm]

Umm, you've chosen to disclose your identity.

Oh really? You make it sound like he just knows my name. You were good with him digging up what other companies I own and provide links to their state filings? And go after who works there and what their titles are? You think running this forum entitles to you all of that? But me knowing his first name which he has disclosed online is bad?

Stunning the spell the man has over some of you. I suggest you go and make your silly case elsewhere.

 

[Blaspheme]

Oh really? You make it sound like he just knows my name. You were good with him digging up what other companies I own and provide links to their state filings? And go after who works there and what their titles are? You think running this forum entitles to you all of that? But me knowing his first name which he has disclosed online is bad?

Since these are questions, the answers would be: yes; not necessarily; ditto; because you are an industry figure, people will investigate your business and affiliations; yes, because he didn't choose to disclose it.

I'll ignore the personal jibe, as I have done previously.

 

[amirm]

View attachment 134476

You go the wrong definition. This is the correct one:

Our Golden person did that on me all of that with clear malicious intent. There is none on my part for mentioning his name. And if you all had not challenged me on that, that would have been the end of it.

 

[Iving]

You go the wrong definition. This is the correct one:

View attachment 134482

Our Golden person did that on me all of that with clear malicious intent. There is none on my part for mentioning his name. And if you all had not challenged me on that, that would have been the end of it.

1. Correction. The definition I posted is not "wrong". It is *a* definition. It was a primary result in a search I did this morning. You have presented another definition. That's fine. Why do you have to be so irrationally dogmatic.

2. Your case is fine with me too. I'm not taking sides. Everything I have posted in this thread is critical of "combative nonsense".

3. Since you replied to me, I do see it as your choice that you want to have it out with Golden in public. That defeats science. It is not a good idea on any level. That is what I am against. The hobby is suffering a disservice. This is what bothers me. The science bit and the hobby bit.

 

[amirm]

Since these are questions, the answers would be: yes; not necessarily; ditto; because you are an industry figure, people will investigate your business and affiliations; yes, because he didn't choose to disclose it.

I'll ignore the personal jibe, as I have done previously.

So anything is game if you provide your real name and are in the industry. Provide transparency and folks will defend anyone making conspiracy theories about it. Any other words of wisdom you want to give me on this? I think I am low on life lessons here.

 

[amirm]

Looks like folks posting have no interest in the technical topic discussion as I requested earlier. I am going to close this thread and get the work done privately.