Let's learn to read and correctly understand the meaning of what is written...

I said that having 1-2-3 streams from Tinker wouldn't change anything. So what if he wins them? What changes?

Streams can only be used as a defense against cheating when all tournament-relevant games are played with them, streamed online, and with checks of network settings and other things.

And regarding Rebus, if you remember (although, why even "if"... you don't remember because you didn't even read it), I didn't claim that he was 100% cheating, not least because I didn't look at his saves. The point of my statements was that Rebus had very poor defenses, and his behavior didn't help his reputation in the eyes of the public (except for those who were already on his side).

I know how to read and understand the meaning of what is written. The problem is that you didn't actually write it; you implied it (because in your specific post about streams, there wasn't a single word about it).
Now, you need to learn to read and understand: after Tinker's explanations, you stopped writing about "blah, blah, blah, he answers strangely (or, on the contrary, correctly and eloquently)." And then you posted that he could win honestly.
I've been following this incident from the beginning, and I've read all your posts. You have your opinion, and I have mine. We just need to not "imply" (so that later you can "smoothly backpedal" out of the conversation), but write specifically. Otherwise, it turns out that you're writing about a grandmother, but you mean that she has testicles:D And then you say: "You guys don't understand anything; I was writing about a grandfather!!!"
And, by the way, I didn't write that you claimed that Rebus was 100% a cheater. "Something like, when his case was being discussed, there were no such phrases. Only stories about the mafia, etc." - here's an excerpt. And the second part of the phrase ("You need to be at least a little consistent, otherwise one is immediately a cheater, and the other could have won honestly") is a generalization: if you discuss one person's actions from a negative point of view, but you don't make the same assessment of the second person, then it turns out that you are (informally) acknowledging one as a cheater and giving arguments in favor of the other with a "+". So, who of us doesn't understand what is written and doesn't read the posts?:-)