> In fact, for example, even when I presented and explained > that my M1 is a finite structure, one of them (Frederick) > refused to this day to understand it.
Whether it's a structure or not depends on which definition of structure you're using. You won't say which definition you are using. You will neither refer to the definition in a text, nor will you give the definition yourself. You have made reference to Shoenfield, but your Ms do not satisfy his definition.
If you refer to, or give, a definition of structure which your M1 satisfies, I will acknowledge the fact. But that will not support your claims about cGC one little bit. So you have created a completely artifical sticking point (is M1 a finite structure) so that you can claim that you cannot prove your claims about cGC because I (and maybe others) will not accept your remarks about M1. That's one way of winning, just as committing a foul in football is one way of winning there. Meanwhile, everyone sees the foul and they are not impressed.
-- When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting