Your sole contribution to the subject is quoting people.
The SART team has made many contributions.
And continues to do so.
However, bringing forth quotes that are important and have been hidden from the scholarship is extremely important. And giving them proper context is extremely important, e.g. if they show a historical imperative by impossible knowledge. (e.g. The 1843 theft.)
An example of an amazing quote is Tischendorf concerned about Simonides while he is en route to the 1859 theft. Can you show that in any other Sinaiticus scholarship? Similarly the quote from Tischendorf in 1844 that proves that the whole "saved by fire" nonsense was malarky, a self-serving con job. Unmentioned among Sinaiticus writers, except our studies.
An example of palaeography is questioning the absurd dating of the Three Crosses Note in the standard Sinaiticus sham scholarship, using Tischendorf plug-in-the-date numbers. And questioning why Tischendorf talked of notes that were truncated at the margins. And there are many more.
Contras should try to work with the real issues, instead of looking foolish, as I pointed out to TNC recently. One example of foolishness is Tommy Wasserman trying to censor any discussion on forums. Another is the current "attack the messenger" attempt.
You are just upset that this thread has strongly supported the creation of Sinaiticus c. 1840 at Mt. Athos, for thinkers. So rather than substantive discussion, your modus operandi is to attack the messenger. Typical.