...What are the relevant and material facts being ignored?...
I guess you're right, ad hom attacks claiming that
every skilled dev
in the entire world already works for Core and
not one single qualified coder would
ever work on a non-Core project (let alone ensure that a non-Core project was thoroughly tested) are 100% factually based. My bad.
Isn't that called a strawman attack?...
No.
You are creating an argument that no one made...
Actually, he did:
... It's only a matter of time they get exposed for being amateurs. Meanwhile Bitcoin Core will continue being the most robust and stable software...
You can't say that it's a strawman that no one made when the original base claim is
exactly that. The base claim is that if it's not coded/tested
by Core, then it's inferiorly made by "amateurs". There can't be a claim whereby those that aren't involved in and/or part of Core are
only "amateurs" without the included claim that
all qualified non-"amateurs" (i.e., professionals) are already part of core. And why can't that be a claim, you might ask; because, English!
When you attempt strip away the validity of one pointing out the absurdity of the original base claim, especially when you attempt to incorrectly grasp the language being used,
you fail at any attempt of even grasping what is being said on either side.
Fair enough, but it still seems to be a bit meaningless to get too caught up upon the exaggerations of either side to make an argument and try to stay with the facts of the matter, which is mostly the system that is in place with core is much superior to various challenging coders that seem to have a much smaller code testing and vetting system....
So, sure, we could grant you that individually there may be similar levels of competence, yet it seems that there is going to be greater inspirations of confidence if there is broader vetting of code before it is proposed to be run.. so we will see.. It is possible that with the passage of time the anti-Core coders are going to build up better testing and vetting systems - and so I agree with you that it is probably NOT productive for BBZ or any of us to make individual claims of competence.. but you also seem to be engaging in your own outrageous exaggerations (and even to take the exaggerations a step further) to overly personalize the discussion, no?