I wish you well!
It seems to me to be an unfortunate choice for you to retire with a somewhat serious, yet passively-voiced, allegation, but if that is how you want to present yourself, then so be it, and people can make of it what they will. Best wishes to you!
Just for the record, I will point out something I wrote in the very post you are replying to: in response to your question "in what manner must [a thought] be like its object", I wrote "[this question] is both the one I think might be answered by information flow via CHOC and the one you have resolutely avoided addressing (you still have not even said whether or not my CHOC-mediated 'correspondence' is your 'likeness')."
As you have repeatedly refused to address the question of whether it is what you mean, I will just say this: you have not shown that anything more is needed in the way of likeness in order for someone to have true thoughts.
Why are you avoiding this issue? Pretending I haven't answered your question is not helping you.
I also do not get the significance of 'verbally' in parentheses. Are you suggesting there is another way to define sameness, and if so, what is it, and why not use it here?