"You are assuming that there are two parties involved, and it is...

"You are assuming that there are two parties involved, and it is a real transaction."
Incorrect. I've already covered this. I was one of the parties involved.

"But neither the buy or sell ever appears on line."
Incorrect. I've already covered this. Per the example provided, the sell order is always there.

"It's a simultaneous sell/buy by the same person."
Incorrect. I've already covered this. I was one of the parties involved.

"All we see is an update in the course of sales."
Incorrect. If you were watching the trades go through, which it is now clear you weren't, there's no rational way you'd hold that view.

"You still have no explanation for single digit trades."
Incorrect. Also not relevant to the discussion (not sure why you're bringing it up now?), we're talking about a reload seller, hence why I haven't introduced an explanation for single digit trades. These are nothing new anyway, and the explanation for them is obvious to anyone who's had experience with the stock market.

"Their trades take place in the background"
Incorrect, they occur exactly the same as any off screen trade made by anyone placing a trade, except they're executed via automation.

"You're telling me that Reload guy is selling real shares, in a real transaction involving another, separate party."
Correct. It's obvious that's the case.

"For this to be true, Reload guy must be a substantial holder."
Incorrect. It's possible they are.

"Who buys all the shares he's selling ?"
People who want them, like me.

"Where is he getting them from in the first place ?"
The stock market, via some another lending scenario, etc.

"14o + transactions on Thursday, hardly any showed up on my CommSec feed."
Unlucky. I saw them all. They're in the course of sales.

"Anyway, who cares what you think, or what I think."
Me, but only when you choose to share your thoughts, because then I have to correct it so other punters understand what's real and what isn't.