-snip-
The code has forked, but the blockchain hasn't.  It's an open source coin and that means anyone is allowed to fork the code.  Anyone can make a change to the code and release their own client.  If that client sends and receives altcoins on an alternate blockchain, then yes, it's an altcoin.  If, however, it sends and receives bitcoin transactions following Bitcoin's blockchain, then it's still Bitcoin.  If the fork goes ahead, the longest chain remains Bitcoin and the other one will not be.  Consensus is not a central group of developers reaching agreement.  If you don't want people to be able to release their own clients with their own proposals for how to run the network, why are you using an open source coin?  Neither Core nor it's developers are a permanent authority on what Bitcoin is or should be.  If you want a coin where the developers make all the decisions and the users have no choice, you have the option of using a closed source coin. 

Indeed, and if the other thread has simply stated that in an honest fashion, I doubt it would have gone on for so many pages and caused so much of a stir.  The purpose of the thread was to cause a panic and discredit the developers.  Hence dishonest behaviour.  If they had simply said what you just did, I wouldn't have taken issue with it.

Yes, by default, if the node is being flooded or DDoS'd, it will prioritise which connections to keep and which to drop.  But this is nowhere near what the other thread was claiming.