+110

I got confused in the preceding post. The word "general" was needed to contrast that bias with the one in the preceding example there. The totality of this view also protects against other ways that word could be taken. 

+109: Expressing my position more clearly-4 (Correction)

When in post +107  I said "I oppose things that suggest general bias.." I think that I missed what I wanted to express.

First, the word "general" could be unnecessarily confusing. Second, and this is more important, I should have used the word "tell" instead of the word "suggest" because the things at which I wanted to point are those that have no other probable meaning except through seeing them as fake. As for things that have other probable reasonable meanings, my answer is that I do not know them as wrong or feel they should be avoided to the level of opposing them and therefore the general position I declared in that post also adjusts accordingly. I am not trying to be the active maker of decisions here. I am just trying to decide when I feel things are calling on me to do so. 

Again, this is not my personal right stand.   

108: Expressing my position more clearly-3

I have two kind of rights here, one personal while the other is about the system, which I share with everybody else. The two preceding posts were about refusal and acceptance talk related to the latter. I included neutrality on the latter with the acceptance there. In other words if voting of every person here was taken on actions I described as I accept in the preceding two posts, mine could be just not voting no.   

+107: Expressing my position more clearly-2

On second thought (technically the millionth trying to find a separation line here), it is not just the time issue, but I also accept or at least take a neutral stand on many other things that are from the start about my issue. That is because I myself gave permission and opened this domain on my personal rights. I remembered yesterday that this creation of fault free zone was the reason on my mind when I made the related declaration on my personal rights but missed completing that later by looking for the things to happen from the start within this domain. For example, one of the judges of the court or those working for them communicates to me that the denial of my petition represents the end of my case and no further action will be taken. That is okay even if it was not true because it falls from the start within the domain of my personal rights where I stated my acceptance for games and untrue declarations. On the other hand I oppose things that suggest general bias toward this guy or what is related to him even though they could be (and have always find them are) less effective on me personally than the preceding example. The measure is not the effect on me personally but the stepping on the system and its integrity and the enabling of this guy to have his way to losing reality toward corruption by confusing real corruption with fake, in making that effect on me.       

+106: Expressing my position more clearly

I cant feel I am acting myself here unless I declare this clearly. The only thing I accept here is giving the judges of the final court the time to deal with this outside the formal path. It should be understood this way and not as a game of pretend corruption I am tolerating.

Other than that, I, for my standing for choosing the good over the bad, accept nothing of the games being played despite 

that I cannot emphasis enough not being negatively affected personally (actually hardly not affected positively). This is all is like being pushed to a different universe to me.

I could have written what mistakenly seen to suggest otherwise but that was only speaking for, as mentioned above, the personal effect  and I think that I deserved to be taken on this meaning and feel bad for coming later to put a responsibility on myself for any misunderstanding here. The difference I am making here is that, beside declaring not being negatively affected personally, I am not taking a passive position for what is correct or what I choose to avoid, and instead from this latter stand declare my opposition to the choices being made.     

+105

The combination of working in the market with the fact that I, like any other person here, cannot avoid the Supreme Court as the final judicial point to which one could be taken for any matter in his life, makes my challenge here like that of challenging a person working as a rope walking acrobat to walk on the ground. That involves the same level of risk everybody else takes. Moreover, given that I have other things at top priority for me for which I could make use of the time, we can extend the analogy to saying that person is very much in need to exercise which the ground walking can provide.
Despite all that, this analogy still falls short of including how much my work in the market also involves time passing.     

+104

Too much energy and resources could be wasted when parties unnecessarily engage themselves worrying about each other instead of assuming the correctness of the work of each party toward itself. Therefore from now on, I intend to focus better on my thoughts and what I want to do by better resisting the feeling of guilt related to hardships on those judges like that resulting from the absent judge claim or any other thing with which they could be burdening themselves in relation to any  effect on me despite what I have written (although that is still much more about my guilt feeling toward the persons not the effect on their work as the final judicial point for justice). If this is what I do here imagine what I would have done if I were in their place, and aside from everything else, if I have that huge guilt this court has with the Second Amendment.   

+103

It seems that the effect of the denial of my petition on me is still being compared to other things in terms of intensity and much less the way I wanted to express it as a different kind of action. So lets make a little review. I did not continue to the final court depending on a faith I had for positive reaction there. Actually, I looked at what to me was the absence of caring signs from this guy and the whole environment in general and said to my self lets see to what this will lead. In doing so I looked at things as being entirely within the  domain of formal process. Like any other litigant the denial of my petition was seen as a fatal thing because it closes that domain. However, after that denial I got what made me consider the existence of a surviving personal involvement to solve the matter domain by the judges at the final court. So  unless you find a way to also close this domain (and I do not know how you can do that) I am very far from being affected even close to the way that happened with the denial of my petition regardless of the intensity level of what I see.