I see your point, fellow anonymous, I really do. If he accepts the criteria, why does he keep on about it? It leads readers to suspect that the criteria themselves can plausibly be called honest, but the interpretation and standards used to evaluate them are not. But if that's true, why would he keep insisting this is the case? It's like he's saying the reserachers took subjectivity, ran with it shamelessly, and produced something so dishonest that it's useless for anything but propaganda. This is all highly suspect, to say the least. No wonder people got out their mops. I find it telling that he didn't respond to your questions. Subjectively, I might characterize them as puerile, semi-hysterical, dishonest and bullying, but that wouldn't be helpful. Your mind reading ability, however, is fair game. I suggest several layers of tinfoil in your hat. It will keep the noise down to a minimum. All the best think tank researchers swear by it.