I think both of us have tried to improve your understanding of the program, correcting the errors you acknowledge and pointing out where some of your suggestions are already incorporated into the program. No one is trying to shut down input. Had that been our goal, the easiest method would have been not to respond.
If those errors hadn’t occurred (in the first place) then the need to post correction responses would be eliminated, however, those errors did occur and therefore generated the correction responses which you now call negative and spurious arguments. No errors ='s no adverse responses.
To have left those errors unchallenged would have meant that this forum topic would have contained misleading commentary, which is not “valuable input” to other Users.