And by the way,

 

the issue is this.

 

 

There is no PERFECT way to defend every one of my ideas if someone who from my past,

whom i've simply lived side by side physically, decides to create doubt.

 

 

And logic, situational (that I am in no position to mislead)

behavioral (repeating attempts at theft even after confession from Steve)

involvement (that is the history of acknowledgement)

attentiveness (that is the impossibility of forgetfulness as reminders we constant)

my own history and its evolving (that is in correlation with elements required to create ships, my interests, and alongside endless repeating usage of the same principle, which includes the space escalator, of which Steve has confessed.)

Their endless deceits and lies (which has already been identified, profound)

 

Now when you simply DISMISS all these facts.

 

And at least give these people one more chance.

 

Then i'm afraid, your intentions in political preference is clear.

 

By the law, you have in every right to dismiss their unreasonable efforts.

 

Why this particular idea? If i'm not wrong about the relays, that you would side with them, if not for your fixation in siding?

 

After all that has occured?

 

Your being permissible to assigning an identity on to me by the mass, and making fun of me yourself, if i'm not wrong. The authorities. This is questionable behavior as well.

Why are  you not setting a better example?

 

Apologies if i'm wrong about the relays.

 

 

Nothing *can be perfect.

However, the law has MORE THAN ENOUGH to draw a conclusion now.

 

And that should not be based on your bias/preference.