i'll give you a chance to be real. no, you set the standard arbitrarily, because backing out would be too humiliating for you after you insist so much. there's no two ways about it. that standard makes no sense. i'll remind you, i already clarified it was an analogy, and wrong in a more technical sense. you, on the other hand are discussing rigorously about this analogy. that's already absurd. then, you incorrectly point out ways the analogy doesn't work, when it in fact still works. you use completely random standards to do so.
Finland