[...]
The "chime in 1" was me engaging in a discussion with other people.
Discussing with other people about Stake's house edge is participating and not being a spectator.
After I informed you (with proof) why Stake's in-house Black Jack is provably rigged, you suddenly switched to spectator and were not seen until you switched to participant again with "chime in 2 and 3".
After I explained to you that you hallucinated nonsense, you switched to spectator again and did not participate until today.
Don't you think it is time to switch to participant again and address the hallucinations you made about my evidence?
Was it chiming in [i.e.: jumping in to get re-involved with the case] according to your mindset?
Yes, when you make a claim about Stake's house edge, which is 100% topic of this thread, then you chime in [again].
The "chime in 2" and "chime in 3", were also me addressing other people, namely you.
Correct. But after I called out your hallucinations, you switched to spectator again.
If you are concerned about online casino victims, why not educate yourself and clarify things?
If you don't understand the explanation why Stake's in-house Black Jack is provably rigged, why not try to clarify?
Because it is against the narrative you are representing?
This also considered as me jumping in and get my hand into the development of OP's case?
Wait... will this, then, considered as me chiming in too? Aww, crap.