I provided a good template language, at least given what was good at the time it was introduced. As good is necessarily a moving target, one can never really satisfy your request as by the time the submission has round-tripped it is quite possible that what is good has already been redefined.

So, yes, I understand you are trying to call attention to my 'loosey-goosey' usage earlier. But I am saying that when I said "good", it was relative to the temporal position it found itself in.