>>108419223> I never replied to this statement and the data never addressed this statement.False.
>>108418729 replied to >>108418709If you'd follow the chain of posts, you'd find that I was saying the same goddamned thing an hour ago, in your terms of "good" and "bad".
>I was dealing with dataYou presented data that was not at all relevant to the thing we were discussing.
I told you what makes a system "good" or "bad" and you asked again what the criteria for a "good" system was.
I simply replied with what I said before, this time in all caps, hoping you wouldn't ignore it like you did the post before.
What was that big chunk where you said something that is flawed isnt broken, if not semantics?
You're getting mighty off-topic with your "y-you're using semantics!!!" bullshit.
I merely responded in with your own terms.
You still haven't answered my question.
Do you, or do you not, agree with what I asked you in the previous post?
