[tomComb]

I'm not stupid: I'm not going to discard my judgement based on careful examination of independent parties in favour of how you want me to judge it. (Even if I hadn't seen that you are not trustworthy and will aggressively attack people for speaking the truth.)

> If you don't believe me, then there's no point in talking.

Ok, something we can agree upon!

[BrendanEich]

I didn't refer you to independent parties. You can check Brave (we provide old versions on github) and you won't ever find us replacing ads in publisher pages. We're all open source on the client side, so you can read revision histories too. If you don't check for yourself, then how do you know what you said is true?

[tomComb]

> I didn't refer you to independent parties.

? I think you're misunderstanding my comment- maybe you are going to fast. (I must admit that you've got energy.)

[BrendanEich]

It would help if you named your "independent parties" plural you're relying on. It seems you can't inspect our product or code for yourself. Are you sure you have a reliable and independent source who has checked our work? Hint: not David Gerard.