Companies settle a lot, mostly because it is cheaper than going to court. Having a case settled doesn’t automatically admit guilt.
All these dances and deflections won’t help your credibility.
The focus on evidence is interesting.
Several claims have been made about me in this thread, including suggestions of alternate accounts, coercion, threats, and various other allegations. To my knowledge, none of those claims have been supported with evidence.
At the same time, I am repeatedly being told that my own statements should not be trusted without additional proof.
If evidence is the standard, then it should apply equally to everyone participating in the discussion.
I agree that a settlement does not automatically establish liability or guilt. I never claimed otherwise.
My point is much simpler: there was a dispute, there was a settlement, and specific terms were agreed.
The current issue is not whether the settlement proves who was right. The current issue is whether the agreed terms were honoured afterwards.
As for “dances and deflections”, I have repeatedly answered questions about the settlement, the support situation, the hardware faults, and the chronology of events.
Meanwhile, I am still waiting for an answer to the questions I asked regarding the allegations of coercion, threats, and exposing the settlement. Those claims were made, yet no supporting evidence has been provided.
We are not as stupid as you are treating us
It is blatantly obvious that you created both of the Consumer Review accounts. One of which shared a link to your profile on the prusa forum, showing that it was you.
But now you go back and deny it?
Similar writing style between the two accounts.
Hard to give you evidence when you choose to hide from the truth.
No they should not
We all realize that you are telling this story in favor of yourself
It really shouldn’t be. You posted using an alternate account in an attempt to deceive us, now we don’t believe anything you say.
Put up or shut up.
Like I said, that is waiting on you to unhidden your profile, and you have refused to be transparent. Now you are dancing in circles 
Ironically transparency is the reason that you claimed for opening this thread, that you wanted everything documented in public.
Dont worry im sure hes just using this forum as a source of evidence for some sort of litigation, billing for “distress” since this legal battle with chinese tier 1 customer service keeps him from flying his very important non-euclidian ornithopter or whatever he keeps going on about.
edit: ooo spicy, bambu opted out of wayback machine. oh well.
I just want to point out that this image could be fake. Either way, it’s meaningless. It could have been edited using Photoshop. It’s also possible that a different text was first entered, the result copied, and then a new text entered. Why is only a snippet ever shown, and never the full result? Exactly!
The fact that it shows 100% human is almost impossible because there are always inaccuracies, which suggests that it is fake.
Why is he deliberately hiding the provider / website? Why?
You don’t do that by accident, do you? Are you just using as a excuse that we don’t use the same website? Then just name the website and show the full picture.
I’ve tested various providers now - both free and paid - and they all agree on one thing: AI. I’m posting the entire screen, not just a snippet:
Furthermore, there is no need for an AI detector since this user has always had this tendency in the past. Always. It’s a pattern that runs throughout his entire forum history.
Now, about the “hidden profile” feature: It doesn’t really do anything. You can just type your two nicknames into the forum’s search bar or Google: it’s all public anyway:
- L0rdS474n - Lord Ulf Henrik Holmberg
- TheSwedishLord
This isn’t confidential information - it’s all publicly available. You can find it all on YouTube, X/Twitter, GitHub, MakerWorld, the Prusa forum and company websites.
It’s important to mention this again so I don’t leave myself open to criticism: All of these are public profiles - a quick Google search will confirm that. A Google search brings up a lot more private information. I’ll stick to public vs. private. No personal information.
Also, this isn’t proof, but just to put things in context: OP always acts like he has nothing to do with AI at all, yet his public GitHub project is full of AI tools, chat boots, etc. This isn’t an accusation, it’s just important to note for context:
L0rdS474n (Lord Ulf Henrik Holmberg) / Repositories · GitHub
Let’s go back to the Bambu search. This isn’t the first time this has happened - it’s a constant issue. It’s always been this way. The OP has absolutely no credibility or grounds for their accusations. There has never been any evidence, just accusations.
He had already used AI much more obviously in a previous post:
The whole thing is just 95% nonsense: What may have started as an attempt to document something - because the OP thinks he’s being clever - is just a huge circus, a farce, a show - call it what you will. I suspect that, combined with the goal of reporting as many users as possible whom he can’t stand, this is my own interpretation. Not facts, but observations.
Someone who thinks he’s incredibly smart, but then fails spectacularly, because at the end of the day, only one thing matters: evidence - and that’s always missing!
Edit: Text formatted
Haven’t replied once in this thread but will do now. There are 2 things for certain here.
1 - His posts are definitely AI written, look at the way they are worded ffs! And starting each post by quoting someones name everytime. Cmon lol
2 - That made up account is the same bloke hahaha, it’s embarrassing
By the way, I’ve done my homework in the meantime and now know which AI detector OP uses.
I can also imagine why this particular AI recognition and why the name of the service were hidden: According to experts, it is precisely this recognition that fails to detect AI:
- “Isgen struggled with AI-generated text and has input limitations.”
In addition, the AI has a neat feature: it can rewrite text so that it is as unlikely as possible to be recognized as AI. Which, of course, doesn’t work, as we can see here.
And now we know why OP only posted a snippet - here’s what the full picture looks like:
Edit: As a reference to how OP cleverly framed the screenshot to hide everything important.
…and this was just a (censored). The service is free for everyone to start with. That was just meant to give the impression that he supposedly has a better version. The intention here was simply to hide the fact that the “humanize” function was being used.
Now the big question is: I don’t deny that he pays for the service, which can also be used for free on occasion: Why do you have to pay?
- If you use it all the time to make your texts sound more “humanize”.
Good manners will win every argument , where one is due, rage baiters who run estores will know this too.
CincinnatiDesigns,
Fine — apply that same standard consistently.
If my statements should not be accepted without supporting evidence, then neither should public accusations that I created or control other accounts.
A public profile link proves that a public profile exists. It does not prove who created an account, who controls it, or whether there is account abuse. “Similar writing style” is not proof either. It is an impression.
You are also correct that I am presenting my side of the dispute. That is unavoidable in any user-reported support case. The difference is that the relevant parties already have the actual documentation: Bambu Lab has it, I have it, and the legal/privacy side has it. I am not going to publish confidential settlement material in a forum just because unrelated users demand it.
So the standard cannot be:
My claims require proof, but accusations against me only require suspicion.
If someone genuinely believes there is account manipulation, that belongs with moderation, where logs and account data can be reviewed. Publicly repeating the accusation without evidence does not make it stronger.
CarbonForge,
“Put up or shut up” applies first to the person making the accusation.
You are stating as fact that I used an alternate account. Then prove it through the proper channel. Not with “similar writing style”, not with “we all know”, not with a public profile link anyone could post — actual moderation review.
Several people here have now argued that my own statements should not be accepted without proof. Fine. Apply that rule consistently. If my claims require evidence, then your accusation of account abuse also requires evidence.
RetroSharky just reminded everyone that reports should be for serious cases and that moderation is already watching this thread. Good. Then this is simple: report the alleged account abuse and let moderators verify it using logs and account data, or stop presenting suspicion as fact.
EcoStang also made the only useful support-process point so far: several hardware faults on one specific printer should be handled as one complete hardware case tied to that printer. That directly supports why this discussion is relevant. The issue is not “harassing customer service”. The issue is what happens when a customer has multiple real hardware faults, support channels are restricted, tickets are closed, and the process becomes unusable.
You can dislike me. You can dislike my tone. You can even choose not to believe me.
But none of that proves alternate accounts, and none of it answers the support issue.
So again: if you have evidence of account abuse, send it to moderation. If you do not, stop stating it as fact.
Sorry. I am done arguing with an AI.
Have your party. I will join when you decide to write a post for yourself.
Or in a language you might understand better…
536f7272792e204920616d20646f6e652061726775696e67207769746820616e2041492e204861766520796f75722070617274792e20492077696c6c206a6f696e207768656e20796f752064656369646520746f207772697465206120706f737420666f7220796f757273656c662e20596f757220637265646962696c747920686173206265656e207275696e65642c207468657265206973206e6f7468696e67206e657720746f206164642c20616e6420796f752061726520612070757373792e20
Oh my goodness, this thread is like a YouTube video of a train crash in slow motion. I know that it will end badly, but can’t look away… Not that I trust a whole lot of YouTube content these days–so much is AI-created content…
Kind of like being Rick rolled….
Funny how you mention my name but ignore everything I’ve written - except for one sentence that you can take out of context and twist to suit your narrative. 
That statement about facts especially applies to you.
How many posts has this thread gone on for? About a hundred? Yet you still haven’t provided a single piece of evidence. You haven’t provided any proof that you actually have that many defective devices or that you were blocked. We’re basically still at the first comment.
The only thing - and I’ll give you credit for this - was a single screenshot in the entire thread:
…but that’s it. Nothing else.
This thread is one big mess…
…you’ll probably never be able to start a thread here, no one will ever take you seriously again. In everyday language, people would probably say: your account is burned.
However, if you take my quotes out of context, I’ll do the same. That was when you were giving a hard time to everyone on the forum who criticised Bambu. How things can turn around 180 degrees… Why don’t you follow your own advice?
You seem to think the baseline is “accept hearsay without evidence” and that we’re being unfair by accusing you of malign behavior, and using that to justify not accepting your hearsay.
Quite the opposite. The default position is to accept a story with evidence, and more extreme stories require more evidence.
You seem to also understand that claims require evidence, which is why you posted a single screen grab showing chat support unavailable; it’s good that you recognized this once, we’re simply being consistent and expecting evidence for the rest of your claims.
That is a saying which goes back before I was born (and I was born before the Space Age started…)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
This still does not answer the OP.
The OP asks whether other EU customers have experienced Live Chat becoming inaccessible for their account, warranty being denied, or repeated support tickets being ignored.
Your reply does not address any of that. It is about whether I used AI to write, followed by a hex-encoded personal insult.
Encoding an insult in hex does not turn it into an argument.
So again, the relevant question is simple:
Have you experienced the same Live Chat, warranty, or ignored-ticket pattern as an EU customer?
If yes, say so.
If no, that is also a valid answer.
But comments about AI, personal jabs, and encoded insults do not answer the topic of the thread.