diff --git a/ref/top-10-lies.md b/ref/top-10-lies.md
index 1796246..6ac76e8 100644
--- a/ref/top-10-lies.md
+++ b/ref/top-10-lies.md
@@ -48,10 +48,10 @@ This article organizes those concerns into recurring claim-versus-reality themes
 ### 3) “HQ Develops Field-Ready Solutions”
 
 * **The claim:** A central, expert team delivers robust R&D and field-ready industrial solutions.
-* **What users report:** There is an emphasis on branding and storytelling over industrial-grade engineering. Multiple reports allege that the core "elite" team lacks professional experience (no history in real production sites or product creation). Designs are described as dangerous, faulty, incomplete, and inefficient—far from market-grade quality. Many practitioners call the machines "frankensteins" that lack transparent development, testing, or engineering reports.
-* **Why it matters:** Field reliability requires engineering depth, extensive test plans, and iteration based on failure data, not just aesthetic design.
-* **What to check:** Request test reports, duty-cycle data, and MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) metrics. Look for evidence of professional qualifications or industrial experience in the core development team.
-* **A more honest version:** “R&D is led by non-professional enthusiasts; expect unverified prototypes, not turnkey industrial systems.”
+* **What users report:** There is an emphasis on branding and storytelling over industrial-grade engineering. Reports allege that in over **6 years**, the "elite" have not been seen engaging in daily support or development work. Furthermore, **"helping" or supporting newcomers was reportedly explicitly prohibited**, as was posting independent content like alternative tools, designs, or software. Critics describe this as a **hostile "extraction logic"**—where the core team captures marketing value and donations while aggressively suppressing the actual trade and the people working on it.
+* **Why it matters:** A project that prohibits technical support and exhibits a hostile attitude toward its own practitioners is not a community—it's a parasitic marketing front that harms the very trade it claims to promote.
+* **What to check:** Request test reports, duty-cycle data, and MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) metrics. Look for evidence of the core team's participation in daily technical support or independent software integration.
+* **A more honest version:** “R&D is led by non-professional enthusiasts who maintain a hostile "extraction legacy" by prohibiting technical support; expect unverified prototypes and an aggressive gatekeeping of the trade.”
 
 ### 4) “Easy to Build & Priced for No One to be Ever Left Out”
 
@@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ A primary example of the "Institutional Violence" mentioned above is the public
 
 ### The "OSR-Plastic.org" Blacklisting
 
-The core team published a coordinated "Warning" article targeting a 8-year veteran of the community (operating as *PlasticHub*, *Polymech*, etc.). This post serves as a textbook example of how the platform is used to "poison the well" against engineering-led critique:
+The core team published a coordinated "Warning" article targeting a 8-year veteran of the community (operating as *PlasticHub*, *Polymech*, etc.). This post serves as a textbook example of how the platform is used to "poison the well" against engineering-led critique but also large sets related knowledge in the very field:
 
 *   **The Narrative:** The critic is labeled a "Troll," "Data Thief," and "Harasser" to justify a complete ban from all platforms.
 *   **The Admission of Censorship:** The team admits to manually tracking IPs and VPNs to ban over 50 accounts associated with this single individual—confirming the "Aggressive Censorship" reported by other builders.
@@ -145,7 +145,9 @@ The core team published a coordinated "Warning" article targeting a 8-year veter
 *   **The Outcome:** By labeling a professional machine builder as "illegal" and "violent," the organization effectively "jails" his 8+ years of expertise, preventing newcomers from hearing well-documented critiques (and designs).
 
 ### Analysis of the Smear
-This behavior demonstrates a shift from "Open Source Community" to "Protected Brand." In healthy engineering circles, technical claims (e.g., "machines are inefficient") are refuted with data and testing. In this ecosystem, they are refuted with character assassination, blacklisting, and a "Report This User" guide for followers.
+
+This behavior demonstrates a shift from "Open Source Community" to "Protected Brand." In healthy engineering circles, technical claims (e.g., "machines are inefficient") are refuted with data and testing. In this ecosystem, they are refuted with character assassination, blacklisting, and a "Report This User" guide for followers. In addition, the 'community' wide call for more violence is directed toward 2 retired people, after investing years of resources and support. Its not surprising that the very relavations over 8 years working with customers are understood as threat to the organization's business model. The call for more direct violence has been also welcomed and supported by Opensource-Ecology, another similar organization that baits volunteers with noble goals but falls short in delivering actual working solutions but shines with censorship, rasicms, and humilation of contributors.
+
 
 ***