zlacker

> Based on what I see in the videos from The Lockpocking Lawyer

The Lockpicking Lawyer is not a thief, so I don’t get your desire to incorrectly nitpick. Especially when you clearly understood the point.

>>latexr+(OP)
You noticed your confusion but still went on the aggressive, huh. Ah well.

"A is demonstrating a proof of B" does not require "A is a clause in B".

A being TLPL, B being that the entire lock industry is bad, so bad that anyone with experience would be a massive improvement, for example a thief.

>>ben_w+J2
I’m not confused and my reply was not aggressive. I don’t think it will be a good use of time to continue this conversation because discussions should get more substantive as they go on and this was an irrelevant tangent to which I have no desire to get sucked in to.

Other people have commented to further explain the point in other words. I recommend you read those, perhaps it’ll make you understand.

>>40428005

>>40428280