No you are the one arguing in bad faith.
Randall posted a contrived scenario where the Fighter beats the Wizard. I countered with another contrived scenario where the Wizard beats the Fighter. It's almost like I was saying that contrived scenarios mean jack shit.
Of course responding to you is pointless, because you are arguing in bad faith
No, I'm arguing with the experience of multiple AD&D campaigns under my belt, two of which each ran more then a decade of frequent play in which actually using the rules that lent restrictions to wizards ended up having wizards be a feared class, but also fearing fighters, rangers, paladins and thieves who frequently killed such unstoppable powerhouses.
Undoubtedly your reply will be the standard "you must have let them win", or the "mage played stupidly". You actually have no idea at all, how unbelievably restrictive 1e magic-users were compared to 3e wizards. As a result, you are arguing with nothing more then a page of talking points you cribbed from places like the Den.
Zero experience, zero facts. I can't call you arguing in bad faith, as I don't think you're lying, you're just completely ignorant of the subject matter.