> Following your arguments it looks like your goal is to cement
> the impression that Helios should be dead and gone.

No, you are obviously not capable of following my arguments. I argued nothing of what you think I did. You are just making things up now.

> I have wondered why anyone would have uploaded this package to Aminet

You said this package was the Helios source code. I clarified your misconception. You then said that the contents was recently touched. I clarified that the most recent file of the package was last touched a decade ago, and that the package has been available for just as long and was just not available on Aminet. You then guessed that the package was uploaded by several uploaders, which Intuition clarified was not the case. You then misunderstood me as saying that polluks doesn't have the latest Helios source code but may have an older version of it. I clarified that misunderstanding.
The package was obviously uploaded to Aminet by polluks because it wasn't on Aminet of all places (but on MorphOS Files, MorphOS Storage and probably others).

> and your response is a discussion about semantics?

Semantics, really? It is semantics whether or not the archive contains the Helios source code, or whether it contains updated files or is just an unaltered upload of a decade-old archive already freely available elsewhere, or whether polluks has has an older version of the Helios source code or none at all?

> Wouldn't it be easier to just write "No, Helios is obsolete,
> polluks has no code and the upload helps nobody!"?

No, such answer wouldn't have made any sense whatsoever as a reply to your comments. The easiest (i.e. least effortful) would have been to ignore comment #110 and just not unsettle your belief that the Helios source code was uploaded to Aminet. In comment #112 you could just have written "Too bad, thanks for clarification".
Btw, what gave you the idea that I find Helios obsolete?