In this instance, one needs to follow the chain of events to validate the evidence offered.
A great opportunity to jump off the 'instant' bandwagon, and begin to think clearly.
How about summarizing the facts so we can get the point and decide if it’s worth looking into further? Insulting FReepers as “instant coffee” doesn’t help; getting the core point across does. All I see so far is vague over-accusations. Look, we’re inundated with information; providing a bit of filtering helps garner interest in pursuing the point further. If you can’t be bothered to summarize the facts, I’ve got other crisis to handle.