I can't help but notice that you've applied some very creative alterations to the data:
- - Pretending that these data are nominal (a position I've already characterized as fundamentally dishonest, not to mention analytically nonsensical).
- Additionally, re-casting the word "avoid" as somehow "neutral," which requires a very... um... unconventional definition of the word "neutral." (And it requires an excruciatingly twisted Reality Distortion Field to claim that the word "avoid" somehow implies endorsement, as you have.) As I noted earlier in the thread, this kind of tortured word-butchery is extremely popular among systemd fanbois, from Poeterring on down. But that doesn't make it true.
- Not content merely to mangle language, whatever passes for arithmetic on your planet allows you to count "SHOULD not/MUST not/MAY" (213) as a pro-S/GIC vote. Wow.
(Though I do thank you for this exquisitely fine example of "backfire effect." You are quite literally trying to rewrite reality in a desperate attempt to "support" your position.)
And still nothing on that value prop. Color me stunned.
Ok then. No más discussing "methodology" with the intellectually dishonest and arithmetically challenged. No amount of data can penetrate a Reality Distortion Field so strong that a 213 vote looks even vaguely pro-S/GIC.