I noted that a set of statistics was being misused as evidence for the specific claim being made and added a source that supported that claim, abeit less strongly. That was &#x27;uncharitable&#x27;?<p>You then &#x27;charitably&#x27; missed my point twice, and argued against a strawman. You followed that up by &#x27;charitably&#x27; accused me of only arguing semantics rather than responding to any of my actual points.