Maybe spend a moment thinking about why the expression you keep coming back to means “lame” to you, and you’ll understand the heart of my objection. If it means lame, then surely the reverse is “not lame” and so a person who is “not lame” is going to be in that state. I suppose where I went wrong is in assuming that you would want readers to believe you are not lame?

It’s been a very, very long time since I’ve worked for anyone where I have 100% agreed with the technology choices that were in place when I got there. Long enough that the only reason everyone was in agreement was there weren’t a whole lot of different choices available. It’s not realistic to think you’ll be working in an environment where you’ll agree with all choices unless you’re building a team. And I can’t imagine anyone in their right mind letting you do that — it’s a lawsuit waiting to happen.

When you don’t agree with technology choices, you have two choices (assuming you want to continue drawing a paycheck from those you don’t agree with): live with them or change them. But even if you attempt to change them, you still have to work with them while you convince people to listen to you. People are far more likely to listen to you if you can produce results that prove you know what you’re talking about rather than just yell at them and call them names.