Some very good points here. It's funny that some of us are trying to analyze all this and considering multiple possibilities,
It's called "Ochams Razor". The simplest explanation is the best explanationYou will consider any explanation no matter how imbecilic, and ignore the obvious explanation
Dan was asked to review many coins, and so he reviewed HAL.
Some how you want Dan to be merely a reviewer of all the other coins but suddenly, when it suits you, he stops being a reviewer and becomes the developer of HAL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
Wow, you are either totally trolling or totally do not understand what I've been saying. WE ALL KNOW THAT DAN CODE REVIEWED FOR HAL. This has been established.
Here's his code review: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=741728.msg8723167;topicseen#msg8723167
What I've been trying to tell you is that he has ALSO always secretly been the dev for HAL (as stated in the skype screenshot). What this means is that his code review was unethical because he did it while giving people the impression that he had nothing to do with Hal's development.
Here's the screenshot again: http://imgur.com/a/1xbWq#2
Do you understand now or do I really need to explain this step by step? I've repeated myself like 4 times already.
It's funny, you were the one who told me to go back and re-read things (which I did), yet you probably haven't even carefully read any of the stuff yourself.