It is almost like you could apply this standard to anyone here by comparing their own trust inclusions and exclusions to the default trust. This is another example of the drooling gibbering excuses for arguments you people present in an attempt to confirm your bias rather than presenting a logical argument. It reminds me a lot about the accusations Nutilduhhh made of "manipulating the trust system" that other users used as a pretext to negative rate me over.

If I add some one to my inclusions, I am fishing for reciprocal inclusions. If I remove some one it is because they didn't add me reciprocally. If some one adds me and I add them later, I am only including them because they added me. You are all free to include and exclude people you choose to, no explanations needed because it is your right to do it as you please. When I include and exclude people it is proof of trust system manipulation. Whatever serves your preferred narrative best is what you go with, reality be damned. What is important is you just keep throwing shit at a trust page until something sticks. You take the target and arrange the facts around the goal, you don't examine the evidence and make a conclusion based on it.



Shall I take that as you ceding that point then since you refuse to actually address the argument in favor of repeated straw man arguments?

No, I don't think I will. I could, but all it is going to do is give the usual clowns fodder to argue over and distract from the point of this thread. It isn't hard to find examples. Furthermore, the very act of asking me to document what allowed a scam to happen is rather asinine on its face, and simply bait for you to try to get me to attempt to document things that by their very nature are not conclusively documented. All of this is just yet another sad attempt to avoid addressing my point yet again. Maybe if we slash a few more tires we will all end up safer.