I'm not disagreeing with you, you're just wrong.

It's not reasonable to expect a project to receive updates, security fixes, and new releases for software projects the author put on the Internet explicitly with a license saying it's warrantied for no purpose, both explicit and implicit.

I was going to present a fair rebuttal, but you’ve just convinced me that it’s unreasonable for you to expect any answer from me in this debate.

There's nothing to debate.

Your starting point is to selectively ignore parts of the authors explicitly chosen license.

It's sophistry.