That seems to upset a great many of you and I don't understand why. Instead of "venting" and moving on I took the time to look at the available data in order to construct a hypothesis on how the winners were selected.

Please address my arguments or please do not respond at all. I am extremely weary of being told things that dismiss my arguments without any actual discussion. "You're just upset you lost." "You're just angry, go do something else." "It doesn't matter, c'mon." are not arguments. Punainen had some legitimate arguments. Others, too. Please respect me enough to provide some as well if you care enough to discuss it with me. Elsewise you are using an ad hominem to attack the person behind the argument, not the argument.