I don't personally believe in being courteous and kind to those who would happily strip me of my rights and freedoms whilst not feeling a hint of guilt about it. You don't get far in life by appeasing those who would take from you that which you hold dear.
what rights and freedoms did franky try and take away from you?
I've already listed them. My freedom to use SegWit, my freedom to use Lightning and my freedom to participate in any future opt-in softfork. He believes no one should have the right to do any of it because it is all "fake consensus". He's been campaigning incessantly since 2017 to try and take it all away.
He talks about rules, but then he constantly breaks the forum rules by derailing topics, so that he can rant about SegWit and Lightning when other people are trying to have conversations about other matters. Notice how we're now talking about SegWit and Lightning in an Ordinals thread? Completely off-topic. And that only occurred because of franky1. Hell, read franky1's first post in this very topic. He is already trying to steer the conversation towards Lightning (his preferred term being "subnetwork").
My first post in this thread was on-topic. I wasn't talking about SegWit or Lightning. And then franky1 starts whining at me, completely unprovoked, like he always does, and starts babbling nonsense about conspiracy theories. Again, he literally can't help himself. He is a rabid zealot.
Read page 1 again. Tell me I'm wrong. By the end of that page, we are already off-topic. Just like we are again now. No one can have a conversation about anything without franky1 turning it back to his obsession with 2017. One of the forum rules states quite clearly "No posting off-topic replies". And then he whines when people question why someone who breaks the rules in just about every topic they've ever posted in isn't banned.
all i ask for is clarification from the development team did they intend for ordinals to exist or not. if not then patch the hole. if so then there's nothing more to say.
If only it were that simple. Developers have no desire to become the arbiters of which transactions are "acceptable" or "unacceptable" that's not their role. It
could be their role, but that has fundamental implications that completely change what Bitcoin is. By asking them to perform that role, you are requesting the creation of a central power who can block transactions you don't approve of. And then we've effectively just re-made fiat and there's arguably no reason for Bitcoin to exist at all.
What's the point of using an inefficient blockchain when a central database with someone in charge blocking transactions would be far more efficient?
The reason we don't use a central database with someone in control is because that control can (and probably would) be abused. That's why we accept some inefficiency as a compromise. Freedom is more important.