I was justifying my own speculation after your double-quoting me appeared to suggest a contradiction in my posts.It's fun that we keep prejustifying unmade claims under the assumption they'll be necessary to aggrandize an underwhelming product. Again I understand sometimes I like to poke fun at the stupidity I anticipate, just seems odd to explain why a misleading record claim (with no agreed-upon technical definition from any veritable authority, afaik) is "technically accurate"
I’m begging you, please touch some grass.