That again is another funny one from you, claiming others have an agenda because they're capable of providing a rational criticism.
You seem unable to criticise Jaros for anything because you're terrified of ending up on the wrong side of your anti-Ben gimmick. Granted in this circumstance, Roy mentioned Ben first, but your go-to trope is 'but Ben' whenever Jaros is criticised instead of taking a reasonable view and say 'yeah, you know what he should have done better there, but I still think he should play ahead of Ben' or arguing the case as to why Jaros wasn't at fault.
Nobody on here that I can see is anti-Jaros; I'm very much pro-Jaros and I'm pro-Ben. I'm also capable to see their flaws and comment as such, without panicking about keeping in-line with an agenda.
You make everything so painfully black and white to try and achieve your ultimate goal which is to be right about something and laud that over everyone.
Reasoned debate allows for nuance. As soon as you accept the latter, you'll be better at the former.