To prove that the 90's was the most competitive era in NBA history, and the Bulls triumphed 6 times? That's basically the entire argument. I'm not sure how its possible to NOT see its relevance. You claim the Bulls beat modest teams and went 6 games a couple times. Look at NBA history. The Bulls dominated the best of the best. In their 6 years of titles, encompassing 24 playoff series, they were forced to a game 7 only TWICE, and won both times by a combined margin of 34 points. In a weird way, these points of Bulls dominance is your entire argument AGAINST the Bulls.
You're building a man with straw, my friend. If you really listened to or read what I've been saying, I've said that the Bulls would reign supreme anytime, anywhere. But part of the evaluation is being objective. They did beat some modest teams as well. The 8th seeded Knick team was barely .500. The Bullets were like a low 40 win team. Some of the Heat, Hornets, and Hawks team were the definition of "meh." They beat some of the best, and they beat some of the bottom dwellers as all number 1 seeds do. The point is, no one has done even a decent job of convincing me why the Warriors wouldn't be able to take them to 6-7 games either. GS would be near the top of the toughest teams the Bulls would have faced. So far I've heard "Dennis Rodman would injure Curry" and similar ignorant arguments. The most valid argument I've heard is that the Bulls combination of MJ, Pip, and Harper would wear down Curry over 7 games and I was the one who mentioned it. Not that I'm the only one who realized this. That said, Curry would still make his usual ridiculous shots and would wear down whoever is guarding him by running off of screens. Not to mention, the man is as smart and as highly skilled a passer as they come. If you slow down Curry, you still have to guard a team full of high IQ, talented, fundamentally sound, and unselfish players.
