OK, so now you admit that deliberately causing delays are possible and that you know of ways to do it.
And I also explained why they don't give you extra patent term. So, are you going to admit you were wrong earlier, or are you just going to keep changing topics every time you get called out? Frankly, that's more than a bit disingenuous, and makes me not want to waste any more time trying to educate you.
Since you seem to think that forcing patents into the RCE backlog doesn't help the application get delayed...
As I said, the RCE backlog doesn't help the application term get extended. It delays the application, but not in a way that benefits the patent owner.
... and that USC 135 & 156 are useless...
I never said they were useless. I said they do different things than what you claimed they did. If you say a car is edible, and I say, "no, you idiot, it's a transport vehicle, not a food," that doesn't mean I'm saying that cars are useless.
Honest question - is English not your first language?
.. why don't you tell us some of the ways you do use?
To delay an application? Sure. You can take monthly extensions of time. Up to 3 months on an office action, and up to 5 months on a notice to file missing parts. You have to pay fees that increase significantly for each month, and you lose patent term. So, while it can be done for various reasons, it doesn't help the patent owner, and contrary to your thread title, there's nothing "extremely scary" about it.
Also, you claim that a patent applicant has no gain or financial interest in a delayed patent issuance date
[Citation needed]. I'll wait for either you to cut and paste those words from my post, or an apology. I assume that you're not a liar and will therefore provide such a citation or apology in your next post.