<<<It's that after posting it, you tried to stop communication about it by calling on Mark's rule about not debating the value of features. >>>
I believe that you missed my point on my follow up. I did not try to prevent discussion — even my senior pea brain knows that I couldn’t do that :-). That obvious was one of what I call the knee-jerk posts, eager to tap out a retort while not comprehending the OP. In part, he disagreed with me (what, that I had already said its Marks baby and can do what he wants??). And the purpose of discussion here is to improve on it debate the merits (or demerits) of a request. That’s not what the reply was — it was a knee jerk, “I’m just against this.” Shal’s and others’ recent thoughtful discussions are what is enlightening. The knee jerk popularity poll “me too, three, four, sixteen, I’ve lost count” is what’s detrimental to the process.
<<<You were not suggesting a feature.>>>
Again, I already said I didn’t know where to raise this. Whether it’s a feature of io might be an honest debate. Or one of those distinctions w/o a difference? Policies are sometimes also discussed herein (ahem, Mark’s last topic, for instance?)
The real benefits to this is open meaningful intelligent thoughtful discussion, which is not enhanced by piling on by either side or knee jerking. As I’ve said before, “if it’s a poll, then start an effin poll.” Jeeez, you liked that when I said it the previous time LOL!!!
<<<not leaning one way or the other" about Indivisible, you expressed your negative opinion of it.>>>
I’m not positive of which statement(s), just to avoid the obvious, please quote so I can be precise in my reply?
We agree!! J, (that’s a good common ground start) politics is banned, however discussion about policies about politics (either leaning) should not be. And I’m not suggesting that you are proposing that.