I didn't dishonestly do anything. I quoted Tom's post in a reply. He's more credible than you because he does actual research. All you do is insult people and make up strawman arguments.
Another lie. You quoted language Tom wrote but indicated it came from the newspaper article that he posted and was therefore conclusive in resolving the issue of the power source of the sign. When I asked specifically about the language you placed quotation marks around in relation to
the article you doubled down. It wasn't until after I pointed out to you that Tom's commentary about the "separate power" source was his own assessment and not a fact noted in the article that you started running away. How exactly is Tom's research more "credible" in this respect? He offered his opinion about the sign's power source. It was not confirmed by any facts in the article. He may or may not be right but I don't see how his opinion is more credible than other plausible alternatives except that his opinion is one that you hope is correct.
