It appears you're providing me with examples which support my assertion that devs can code what they want. 

Despite the part where some people found those clients to be divisive or objectionable, developers were still free to create them.  People had the opportunity to run those clients.  A few people are still running some of those clients even today.  If Bitcoin were a closed-source project with one person having exclusive control over the code repository, then perhaps those clients wouldn't exist.  But Bitcoin is open-source, so anyone is free to use that code and create something new.  Any time someone on the forum has claimed that other developers had no right to use "Core's code" as a base for other clients, I have challenged that.  I stand by the stance that anyone is free to use that code to create other clients. 

As far as I'm concerned, everything works as intended here.  I'm happy with that.  You say you're not happy, but again you don't seem to be able to propose a viable alternative.



Now this is where things get interesting.  We're into the subject of social engineering.  This one is an absolute hornet's nest.  Mostly due to the part where it's a human flaw.  And I'm going to be completely honest with you.  I don't have an answer for you. 

Sometimes people lash out and make petty attacks against things they don't approve of in the hope that they can convince other people to feel the same way.  And this has happened quite often when devs create new features they would like to see implemented.  There's no way I'd deny that.  It absolutely happens.  But the thing is, it's all completely subjective.  What are we supposed to do about it?  One person's ideal might be another person's heresy.  So it's inevitable that people will attack new ideas if they don't like them.  I don't have the slightest clue as to how to change that sort of petty behaviour and I suspect you don't either. 

But I do have an important question for you:

Can you highlight any distinction between the behaviour of those people who made "REKT" campaigns against those implementations like XT/Classic/Unlimited and your behaviour with your ongoing "REKT" campaign towards LN? 

Because I'll be the first to admit that I can't see any difference (aside from the part where your campaign has been remarkably less successful).  You claim you are vehemently opposed to that sort of conduct, but one could argue you're doing exactly the same thing.  Lashing out and attacking a concept you don't approve of.  How are you acting any better than they were?  Is it a revenge thing?  They did it first, so you're justified to do it now?  Help us to understand it.  There's clearly something getting lost in translation here, because none of us can figure out what it is you're actually trying to achieve.