EoQS were not handed down as covenant atop Mount Sinai. If many users are raising issues with its wording and implementation, perhaps engage them rather than call them juvenile, whiny, and dishonest.
@JackGallagher I removed my comment, as you seemed to find it offensive. I apologize. But you did not engage me or Mike Earnest before judging us to be rude, on meta. It's a two-way street here, Jack. Do not preach what you do not practice.
@JackGallagher Cheers!
@Jack, FYI, you can click on the link to Trash, above. I think it was a question worth asking, but I do want to offend you in particular. And in particular, your own behavior on meta is one part of why I asked the question.
@amWhy I do not agree that there is a symmetry between (a) my comment to you and Mike on meta and (b) your now-deleted comment in this chatroom. On meta, plop made a point about EQoS. The validity of that point is irrelevant because it was clearly made in good faith. To respond to that with a sarcastic remark about him misremembering, and then especially Mike's implication of ulterior motive is rude, and I stand by that.
Calling out rudeness is not rude. What substance was there for me to engage with yours and Mike's comments? Conversely, there was substance in plop's earlier comment. Therefore there is no symmetry.
