The "chime in 1" was me engaging in a discussion with other people.
Discussing with other people about Stake's house edge is participating in this topic and not being a spectator!
Ohh then my apology for the misunderstanding that occured --apparently, solely on-- your side, and allow me to redefine "spectator seat" for this situation: I am not actively overseeing OP's cases. Simply watching from time to time through the show/hide button [since he's on ignore] so I can stay updated for the sake to keep this case updated accordingly to my list. Being "spectator" though, as it simply means I am not actively overseeing his case, does not mean I fully take passive stance and being a statue in the corner.
From time to time, I'll jump in to address matter that I find interesting and worth engaging. Still, I am not and will not actively attempting to get to the bottom of OP's case.
Hopefully that new definition can be absorbed to your mindset. Apology for the inconvenience.
After I informed you (with proof) why Stake's in-house Black Jack is rigged, you suddenly switched to spectator and were not seen until you switched to participant again with "chime in 2" and "chime in 3".
After I explained to you that you hallucinated nonsense, you switched to spectator again.
Don't you think it is time to switch to participant again and address the hallucinations you made about my evidence?
What hallucination? Worth to mention, I am fully aware the post you're referring, but... what hallucinations are they, again? Or, more precisely worded, are they "hallucination"? Do you need a help in a definition of "hallucination"?
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].
Explained above.
The "chime in 2" and "chime in 3", were also me addressing other people, namely you.
Yes, you addressed my evidence, but after I called out your hallucinations, you switched to spectator again.
Explained above.
If you are really concerned (quod non) about online casino victims, why not educate yourself and clarify things?
Doing it from time to time, educating myself, as I am fully aware that I am not well-educated and know-it-all and there are still plenty of room to learn new things, especially as every cases on this forum are treated as unique and each have their own elements that sometimes are new to me.
If you don't understand something in the explanation why Stake's in-house Black Jack is provably rigged, why not ask?
Hmm? Care to rephrase what you're trying to convey, as I am not sure I understand what you're saying.
Because it is against the narrative you are representing?
Who am I representing, again? Do you have proof of it?
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
Of course. OP also played Stake's provably rigged in-house Black Jack, so whenever you switch from spectator to participant in regard to Stake's house edge, you also jump in and get your hand into the development of OP's case.
Hopefully, with redefinition of taking "spectator seat" that I specifically write for you [as others doesn't seem to find it hard to understand the euphemism], you'll get into the same page as the rest of us.