There's the indication that you did indeed either speed-read or ignore some very critical posts here.

The general opposition was not to "ANY". That accusation is overly broad, and you insult many people here with such straw men.

I see by your posts that you're adept with words. Thus my surprise reaction to some of your conclusions. The dialog did not lead up to what you allege.

What went on here was typical in such situations, and there was nothing wrong with ANY of the contributions since, as you very aptly assert, they are all opinions. No one was coerced, bullied or censured in this natural process; people expressed all sorts of ideas and for the most part contributed toward a productive dialog. And in the end, the screaming stopped, the feathers settled back down, and it looked to me like we had indeed arrived at a reasonable solution that took ALL inputs into account.

So while you think the process was silly (), I think coming in rudely at the end with your nonparticipatory analysis and unnecessarily restarting it in confrontational fashion is beyond silly. But hey-- that's just my opinion.