1141: How did this cross into their summer recess?

                                    (Added July 11, 2025)

  I hope that the way I argued below does not eclipse how my record of satisfying requirements here should put me far from the need to depend on a length of time argument. 

 One could also see the argument below as directed at freeing them from any related obligation they supposedly have for this guy.

By the way, and although I have done a similar thing before, to better cut on the games to take more time, I am declaring here and for immediate effect taking that at least when it is about the same amount, receiving that amount on an earlier day and/or earlier time (including weekends) if done between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm eastern time is always my choice over receiving it on a later day and/or later time.

                                 (First Posting)

  So if last year the time was extended beyond their term to compensate the guy for not taking the right I gave him to pay me just the original amount, what happened this year? How did this go beyond their term this time? Or is it that they entered this considering themselves as having the right to time even more than they originally considered for themselves last year even though this one is supposedly a minor thing done just to give me better tax time? Or is it that even outside their time I am being treated like an object taking responsibility for other's action?

What could be the reason that was stronger than how time restriction should be controlling on this matter? 

  Could it be that they have been giving those time extensions to this guy not on the basis that it is within their time but on the basis that their agreement or contract with him requires that? If so, then why did they stop short of giving me as slave to him?

And even aside from all usual factors against accepting this as courtesy, if I got a specially empowering thing why would I go along with canceling its effect for the purpose of making me in the weak position while this guy be more like God in being under no force when he supposedly deliver his obligations? Haven't there been already enough done for him in that regard with this situation seems that much rooted at his March of last year refusal to honor his first agreement because a host on a TV shopping network showed a week or two away announcement for two programs of his squeezing in the middle the day of the action required from this guy? 

With regard to the latter issue, although I have already accused them of positioning themselves like God toward me it never occurred to me that could be to the level that they take their agreements with the guy this much absent of considering how external factors could be forcing for them as well and outside their ruling power. So, when such thing occurs the guy could object to it and ask for sharing their power. Who would have thought when getting the vibe about them having no choice but to go along with this guy on a time extension that that weakness is the result of how they have considered themselves like God? 

For an external example about the above, they could be taking themselves like a referee of an outside sport who does not stop the game for the wind or heat not because they are not high enough to invoke his power to stop the game but because he decided that their levels are okay for the game. So, if such referee takes one side of the match as sharing his power and that side wants to stop the game because of heat even though it is not high enough then that referee making his decision on the basis of sharing his power with that side may think that justice requires him to find a compromised solution rather than just refusing the request which is what the other kind of referee would have thought justice requires him to do even if he takes the asking side as sharing his power with him.