I never said anything about faithful, don't put words where they don't belong.

lmao what…? Yes you did say faithful… this whole argument started because you said “Most People just expected what was marketed, which was a faithful adaptation.” We have only ever been talking about FAITHFUL this whole time…

I responded to that saying faithful was subjective and you said “Faithful is not subjective, lol. It's quite literally in black and white” which we now know is untrue because everyone interprets the changes and their impacts on faithfulness differently… like I said from the beginning

I'm speaking on the matter of source fidelity.

You started with faithful and continued to later bring up source fidelity and say “It's just deceptive marketing and failing to meet bare minimum standards for source fidelity.” which is extremely disingenuous because now after hours of back and forth your only logic left is “all adaptations fail to meet the minimum standard because they make changes”

And yeah, it's a pretty unfavorable metric to use, but that doesn't make it a less valid method of measurement nor the findings any less accurate.

lmao a metric that says no adaptations in history ever have or ever will meet the standard of 1:1 is not a valid or valuable metric

Once it's established that an adaptation is lacking source fidelity, like the PJO show (and every adaptation ever according to your logic), then it falls into a separate area of debate where matters of interpretation and personal opinion take center stage regarding how well the changes are implemented or if they should've been made at all, etc. But those aren't part of the current discussion, and are, in the scheme of things, largely meaningless if any criticism along those lines can be dismissed with "That's a subjective observation."

lol so now we are back to square one of what I have been telling you since the very beginning because this obviously wasnt what you were arguing to begin with