I give Garzik some credit for making a clear effort to find middle ground and put emphasis on consensus, rather than pandering to the outright alarmism of BIP101. I actually think that if we are going to raise the block size limit, that it should take similar form to Garzik's BIP102 -- a simple doubling, a minimal incremental approach. Although it probably makes sense to wait until demand actually warrants doing so.
I've read alot of your exchanges, and you've done incredibly well to maintain your composure in the face of such relentless and willful illogic.
I hope you can now agree that this behaviour cannot be anything but entirely conceited. Dishonest participants, who will do or say anything, no matter the internal contradictions, to force their position on the issue. All while complaining that they're being censored and oppressed.
What's next, Hearn and Andresen complaining to some authority figure or other about how their great idea is being oppressed by the people who are not clever enough to choose it freely?
Thanks, I appreciate that. Indeed, it's frustrating debating with people that take a dishonest and disingenuous approach. I put up with it for a bit, but at some point, you can only call it what it is.