See Post #145 ... :-) ...
In my opinion #145 does not address the specific points of #132... #145 is just a restatement of the main charge, that there is no way the site can be known good. #132 gives evidence for the good, and how it is known, #145 just repeats not, not, not...
Anyway, that’s the way I see it. I do think you are exhibiting some kind of irritability here, Star Traveler, that is unrelated to the discussion itself.