This is really the crux of the matter.
"Core supporters" want development to be centralized in the hands of a few guys.
Everyone else wants decentralized development and multiple implementations.
Do you realize that the more your group insists on making false assumptions and misleading statements like above the less credibility you have.
We are quite capable of making logical and reasonable choices based upon the facts :
These are the two latest viable proposals ... both are fine IMHO, but I am slightly biased towards core because technically its better.
Classic - basically BIP102 - Earliest March 1st ,16 but possibly in April /may to build up enough consensus (waiting for code and testnet)
Effective 2MB block capacity + possibly removing RBF + possibly versionbits
5 developers maintaining
Core + Segwit - Code completed, Been in testnet since Dec 31, expected april.
Effective 1.75-2MB Block capacity
Version bits , future fraud proofs, signature pruning, simpler script updates, fixing malleability allowing future payment channels.
45 developers maintaining
I have long advocated multiple implementations , especially ones like bitcore, libbitcoin. I also like and respect Garzik, Jeff, and Toomin, so it isn't political for me.... but comments like yours make me think that Bitcoin classic supporters are a bunch of dishonest and manipulative advocates trying to create wedges where none necessarily exist.