What was meant was each person's personal fantasies. And what is written is objective reality.
Maybe it's because I just didn't read (or skimmed through) Tinker's explanations? Did that version not occur to me? But it's the only correct one...
Here, I'm writing very specifically. Let all the "implications" be on the conscience of those who suspect me of implying something.
Only you. I didn't have any arguments with a positive sign regarding Tinker. Moreover, earlier in the topic, I said that I consider Tinker a cheater.
The argument about streams was an argument with a negative sign regarding the idea of checking Tinker's honesty by recording streams.
1. I didn't look at the saves (this is from the second-to-last post)
2. I didn't read the explanations ("maybe"):D
3. I wrote a lot of nonsense, but in fact, I wrote nothing... Explain where in the post: "What could prevent Tinker from winning fairly? I don't think anyone doubts that he is a strong enough player even without maphacks," - and I wrote about him, is there a reference to streams?
You end up with "I don't delve into the matter, but I draw my own conclusions." Very clever approach))) And most importantly - it's correct!!!:D :D :D
There is an expression: "there are two opinions: mine and the wrong one"... But it is not suitable for constructive solutions. You could have understood that by now...
