In article , Wolf K
wrote:


Hey, you snipped context-providing material. Tsk, tsk, naughty!

nope. i snipped excess text that is no longer relevant, but those who
wish to review it can *easily* do so with a single click.

"Better" and similar words are ascriptive, not descriptive adjectives.
They signal opinions. It may be a well founded opinion, but it's still
an opinion.

except when it isn't.

something that works will always be better than something that doesn't
work.

a) If a program lacks a feature which I never use, it works.

b) If a program has a buggy version of a feature which I never use, it
works.

no. it's still broken.

So what? It still works as expected or desired by me.

you aren't the final arbiter.

windows 10 1809 had a broken feature that deleted user data, which
according to microsoft, only affected 1/100th of 1% of users.

in other words, most people did not encounter it, yet it was broken
enough to be major news, forcing microsot to pull it and rerelease it
several weeks later.

it's also a feature he is actually trying to use.

Yes, and in that context, your opinion may be useful. But it's still an
opinion.

it's not an opinion. the feature is broken.

c) Many people use obsolete or non/no-longer working objects for other
purposes, such as interior decoration.

d) A non-working or broken example of an artefact is better than nothing
from a museum's POV.

this isn't about interior decoration or museum exhibits.

Ah, but it is relevant to your claim something that works is "always
better" than something that doesn't.

you're arguing just to argue.

not even a good attempt at diversion.

Oh, I wouldn't have bothered, but you used "always", and I was bored.
Don't use "always" when you are expressing an opinion.

you're deliberately taking things out of context.

It may comfort you to know that I agree with your advice to get a
newsreader that does what he wants.

further proof that you're arguing just to argue.