What we think is deserving of a test and what is a test can be two totally different things. You don't have to think Bangladesh deserve test status and you don't have to think performances against them mean anything, but if you say someone has X test wickets or has a test batting average of Y, you can't disclude them, as you're then simply just wrong.
As you know, I agree with you for the most part about matches against Bangladesh counting for little, but for someone who is so pedantic about the difference between batting positions one and two, you hold little regard for the difference between what is fact and what you think should be fact.
If you're going to take Bangladesh out when arguing about a player's performance, that's fine, but you have to say so. MacGill has taken 198 test wickets. Sure, only 150 odd of them may actually be of any relevance when judging how good a test player he actually is, but he still has 198 test wickets whether you or I think he should or not. We're all quite capable of judging for ourselves what should and should not be a test, but we don't have the authority or power to decide what is and is not a test. We're capable of deciding what is relevant and what isn't, which is why I typically take Bangladesh out of any analysis I do, but I'd never state that they weren't test matches, because they are. Some test matches aren't particularly relevant when judging a player, but they are still test matches.
