Maybe our sense of "clear" is unclear?

I thought that I made myself clear enough, especially for those who understood that I was criticizing Roger's personality and his seemingly ongoing temper tantrum motivations, and now we seem to be getting repetitive... And, you want to get into some kind of other distracting point about what is the greater and deeper meaning of "veto power," when I thought that I made myself clear enough for all intents and purposes.. except not for the intent of satisfying someone like you who feels some kind of compelling drive to defend fellow BIG blocker nutjobs like Roger who, like I said, is motivated by wanting to have his way.. Are we repeating to such an extent that such points are getting lost?  Perhaps, but it seems to me that you want to distract and to divert such topics in such a way to make the point(s) about me or some abstract concepts of "veto power" rather than the overall point that I was attempting to make?

What more do we need to say to beat this topic to death?




That seems to be a slightly different point, and we can attempt to describe what they were doing as a form of a desperate temper tantrum that the NY agreement had kind of blown up and was not going their way.... so they made a last gasp at attempting to muddy the waters and to NOT to get segwit.  Maybe initially bcash was not meant to be an attack vector for bitcoin, but it has grown in that direction?  I think that my main point is that the motivations and the movers behind bcash kind of changed with time, and like you suggested, it is not like they waited around to see what people thought, they just did it because they felt that it served their narrow interest... perhaps the bcash fork itself was more of a Jihan Wu move, but the subsequent marketing and using bcash as a bitcoin attack vector became more of Roger's and Craig's baby.