The raw facts that QS posted seemed accurate but I just didn't have the same interpretations or draw the same conclusions.
No, they are most certainly not facts. Whilst I am not going to waste my time debunking the whole thread, especially not considering the time passed since the event, here's one example:
Immidiately prior to sending this 'extortion message' Lauda (and upon information and belief, others) was (were) badgering zeroaxl about his alleged criminal activity.
This is a blatant lie. If my memory serves me correctly, I had sent zero messages to Zeroxal prior to the 'string message' itself (at least not within that month; e.g. we had a trade a long time ago).
I don't really see the example you listed as a fact but more hearsay or opinion because I did not see anything solid to really back that particular statement up. I'm primarily referring to the links and archive information that had been posted as being the closest set of factual data that could be explored (I explored more than this, but that data was I guess what I would call my starting point), I certainly try to comprehend these
opinions and take them into account but I don't normally accept them as fact unless I find or see adequate proof. Not that this statement would have altered my conclusions anyway...
As for wasting your time, IMO time itself should not make this go away or be any less relevant, the facts should do that. I realize I'm late on this thread, for various reasons, but felt the need to respond with an explanation of why I didn't feel right leaving a negative rating.