Again, you’re going back to the philosophical stance.

Wow, how professional of you to accuse me of being inexperienced in data science when you can’t even interpret your reused data properly? And of course I’ll go back to my philosophical stance since it is already my principle as an educated person, student, educator, and scientist.

Well that’s nice of you, let’s go technical. Where in that statement was the quote? “Why” “would” “you” “assume”… (let’s not go on). That’s the problem when you do things improperly. People misunderstand you. And that’s the problem you just did earlier with your general article, and with that MAYBE I’m one of the people who misunderstood you, since you proposed it’s full of praises about Davao. I was not treating your article as a journal, NOT UNTIL you tried to strengthen your point by using your “so-called” statistics, which I may remind you, I still don’t have any idea how available it is.

And lastly, I already told you that I agree on the part of “debunking superlatives”. Why would you need to point it out again?

QE: some spelling and grammar change; making you understand this is taxing…