SnowWolf said:
*raises eyebrow*

Okay, let me say this a little more bluntly.

[..]

tl;dr - I was trying to move the conversation to the thread where the conversation belongs.

To be frank, I cannot read your earlier post and get any sense of trying to move to another thread. That idea just doesn't seem to be included in any way, even if it's what you actually intended.

It seems pretty clearly about 'how features are built', from start to finish.

And saying that ideas are good things, even if less feasible. It's easier to plan to expand later than to retrofit.

I don't even disagree with that -- much of what you have said seems to me both obviously true (the kind of case I would myself make, largely), and irrelevant to the post you replied to.

Saying 'it would be good if we had X' or 'it would be good if we didn't have to Y' is not the same kind of thing as 'we will have X if we get Y'. The latter statement is a claim about "how Y would relate to the existing system", rather than "how we want the system to behave".

If it's a clearly false claim, then it is misinformation, which needs to be pointed out promptly, *especially* in the case where most participants are technically clueless.

I could have posted to the other thread. I considered that a bit more hostile of an option though, like 'Look what Clawdragons posted over here!', since AFAICS the topic was the existing system and not primarily transcript:.