On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 09:13 AM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
Nobody said it was wrong to raise this issue here. I and a couple of others were pointing out that Mark's asking not to debate the value of features applies to features. He did not say not to debate groups.io philosophical issues, or "policies." Yet you tried to cite that limitation to preclude debate about your issue. I don't think this is a distinction without a difference. A feature is part of a piece of software that users can use. This is not that. Perhaps Mark meant the limitation to include debates about broader issues and not just features. But that was not how he phrased it, and that was not how it's been taken here, and that's why your citing of it to preclude discussion of your issue did not seem appropriate .
Right here: "Indivisible does not promote unity, it promotes defeat by garnering greater numbers, which leads to more division and gridlock"
Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.