Dobry, you are being an idiot. Ramil said in the very first post:

Speaking of which - the good source would be texts containing 'perfect English' preferably of modern everyday speaking style rich with modern idioms, with extended vocabulary and with some part of direct speech.
It is perfectly obvious that Ramil's definition of 'perfect' is 'flawless', and that he is not looking for a theoretical absolute state of perfection.

Hell, he even placed the word 'perfect' in inverted commas to acknowledge the distinction.

Now, you are of course free to carry on arguing that a state of perfection cannot exist, by dreaming up the most unreasonable, strictest set of circumstances you can think of, but what logically follows from that assertion is that the question is invalid, and therefore there is no point in continuing the discussion. Thread over, move along, nothing to see here.

All I am saying is that, for the sake of not rendering the thread moot or derailing it with some high-school debating society nonsense, we should perhaps adopt a slightly less stringent, more reasonable definition of 'perfect', i.e. the one Ramil was using in the first place, thus allowing the discussion to stay on topic.

Do you see the difference? I am not saying that your point is wrong, I am saying that it is irrelevant to the question asked in the terms it was asked, and that it is anyway such an obvious truism that it needn't have been mentioned in the first frikkin' place.