Comment by dpark
1 day ago
I didn’t say any of that. I did not defend the dev’s stance nor did I say that the statement from the commenter (“change it or we’ll fork”) was unreasonable. In fact my very first comment said it was not an inappropriate statement.
Maybe read the thread before knee-jerk responding.
Maybe engage with the argument instead of knee-jerk rejecting them.
I did read all the comments in this branch and I disagreed with the way you put something.
You didn't "defend" the dev stance but you called someone considering a fork due to the unwanted features "threatening the dev", probably due to the fact it's a negative outcome to them, but somehow you are okay with the dev making the arbitrary decisions that are negatively impacting some users.
You cannot have both. They're either allowed to walk away branching out, or he's not allowed to make "threats" to them.
And you cannot pretend you're engaging with my arguments in the good faith while ignoring clou of my comment and calling it "knee-jerk response" instead, LOL.
Part of the gap in understanding here is that you are insisting on interpreting everything I’ve said in the context your interpretation of the word “threat” rather than the one I have explained repeatedly. This is why you insist on putting words in my mouth, because you are unwilling to accept the ones I’ve actually said.
> You cannot have both.
I can absolutely have both. The dev can make decisions that users don’t agree with. Users can express their willingness to leave or fork in response. And the choice to leave can absolutely be expressed as a threat.
You’re assuming a moral judgement in my statements that is simply not there. This is why I called your response knee jerk. You made an assumption instead of reading what I wrote (and clarified repeatedly).
Take care.