I concur with threeinvisibleducks; data is a meaningful addition to the thread, and Berder tends to analyze it competently.
On the other hand, it's important to remember that data shows what it shows exactly, and any conclusions which are applied to a given topic tend to be somewhat subjective when you have imprecise data (the typical data you have to work with in soft sciences.) For instance, we know that streakers tend to win felids more than nagas. Stating that this means felid is stronger than naga is a data-informed opinion, not a fact. And there can be legitimate disagreement based on what precisely we mean by 'stronger', and on disagreeing with the premise that streakers are representative of optimal play (not that they are optimal play, but that they can qualitatively simulate it.)
I think the toxicity of these discussions would go down if we all stated our facts as facts and our opinions as opinions.
Now for my non-meta thoughts.
The other thread that was cited proves that Ne tend to lose more 3-rune games among competent players than most other backgrounds. It's my opinion this is because Ne is a weak background. It could alternatively be that it's because otherwise competent people play Ne fundamentally wrong, but I doubt it.
I disagree with Berder that what makes Ne weak is that animate skeleton is weak. I think it's mostly fine on trunk. I think the problem is that Ne is an XP intensive background, wanting you to skill Ne significantly and train weapons skills. Some backgrounds where that's true, like summoners, get by with it because your power is very reliable. Necromancers run into a problem where they can easily end up facing an enemy who's immune to their offensive spells without any meatshield support.