Wrong on both counts.  

Firstly, I know you aren't having any effect on the network because Bitcoin categorically does not work the way you wish it did.  I'm merely pointing out that it will never work how you think it should, because that would be worse than what we have at the moment in every conceivable way.

Secondly, you are the one playing the logical fallacy with your ongoing appeal to pity, which is an emotional appeal.  You keep saying how unfair it is that clients are thrown off before their features activate and before we get their consent to follow a roadmap they might disagree with.  How unfair you believe it to be is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  

But please, keep telling us how Bitcoin would be better if we accepted your double-standard where other clients can remove us from their network at any given moment of their choosing, but we can't give them a helping push on their way and instead have to permit these clients to stay on this network so they can stifle progress and block activation of any features on this chain that you personally don't happen to like.  It's obvious why you would want Bitcoin to work in such a way, where other clients hold all the cards and can effectively hold the network to ransom.  How do you justify the belief that we supposedly have to wait for them to activate a feature, when they don't have to wait for us to activate a feature?