I didn't (I particularily appreciate the "again").
Perhaps should you let the steam go down and try to express yourself in a congenial, or at least, if not able to be kind, a reasonable, way?
LFT reedited the rat pack, each time correcting some errors that the players noticed and reported to them.
They listen to the community and they do a fine job bettering their publications.
I presume that you meant "uselesness" rather than "usefulness" - otherwise, you would be complaining because you cannot make them useless...
The global feedback I have read about the rat charts is that many players use them and prefer them over the official charts, because they are more practical to use.
I don't see what Perry and playtests have to do with the question of the rat charts - the latter are a TPP product.
Perry has always answered the questions I sent to MMP, btw (one must use the appropriate email adress though).
Sometimes, with some delay, but most of the time within days.
And MMP do take players' feedback into account: you will have noticed that reissued scenarios in core modules are often tweaked to make them more balanced or to clarify possible ambiguities.
I don't use the rat charts - because I use the official ones and because I craft my own game aids - but be sure that it I used them and saw an error, I would contact LFT.
I have done it about their Inor pack (on the French forum) and the reaction has been outstanding.
As most players, rather than vent my irritation in a thread about someone in abstentia, I contact the person (or the publisher) directly.
It is much more efficient to change things.
You should try.