Unlike this personal attack, I was commenting on what you said.
You quoted him correctly as saying..
I agree it is confusing for many when navigating in Theater View...
Then replied...
Sorry to nitpick, but characterizing the matter this way is not helpful. It's true the 'All' item was confusing some, but...
Characterizing "the matter" in what way? confusing? You agreed it's confusing. The next sentence you write is in total agreement with what you quoted him saying, except for a somewhat softer superlative (some people vs. many people) How is that difference in characterization of a persons level of confusion "not helpful"? To whom is it "not helpful"?
What you said was incorrect and potentially misleading, especially had this thread been moved to the general board.
How is the difference between
many and
some "incorrect" or "potentially misleading", and in what way would that be increased by moving to the main board? Are they even dumber over there?
I fail to see how you can misconstrue, "Sorry to nitpick..." followed by a careful explanation of the issue (which I stand by).
It's the equivalent of telling him "Sorry to tell you, you're totally wrong, and you almost confused everyone else but me, so I'll just correct you now, so that everyone isn't confused by your error" then restating almost verbatim what he had just said. The implication being he was some kind of idiot because he used different words than you did to say basically the same thing.
He, then you both said 'The 'All' item is confusing people to some degree.' Then you go on to state "obviously the 'All' value should be at the top of the list and selected by default."
Why should something agreed to be confusing "obviously...be...selected by default", as you state; again implying how stupid he was to have missed the "obvious"? It seems to me that something which is generally agreed to be confusing should NOT be the default behavior? It would then stand to reason that the option should actually be to "add it back" not "remove" it.
You then continue on in your explanation to state that it's inclusion is "perfectly logical", insinuating he was illogical, yet he never said it shouldn't be inlcuded, he instead said the opposite, with which you seem to agree actually.
You continue to nitpick about the option being a "remove" option instead of an option to "add it back", as if the difference is of the utmost importance, and he's so far off base to have not used the 'proper' term, as you felt the need to correct it.
Then you continue to say it "was added to appease those using simple views in which it which selecting 'All' is illogical or unnecessary" as if "those using" these "simple views" (probably the stock views most users never change) were just whining until they were thrown a bone of appeasement.
You then state these "simple views" are "actually a small minority of all the types that might be used", again implying that it was a waste because of what "might be used", likely referring to the 100+ views you've created for yourself. Just because many view might be created, does not mean care should not be/have been taken to avoid confusion for users that have not created "all the types" you, and others have.
You then continue to state that he
Suggest(ed) it was a flaw that was creating confusion and was "added back" as an option for the deluded few who wanted it doesn't help anyone understand the design properly.
But you yourself state that it causes confusion, then referred to some "deluded few who wanted it" of which he is one, as are you I think, and that his characterization of the 'flaw' as affecting "many" somehow confuses everyone "about the proper design." Why is your opinion of "proper" the only valid opinion? Not to mention he never said anything like what you are trying to attribute to him there.
The whole thing is just insulting and condescending, and mostly inaccurate on your part, making it all the worse.
I realize that you think I'm attacking you, but I'm really not. You said you "fail to see how you can misconstrue..." and I'm trying to help you see where you weren't really being as polite or helpful as you now seem to claim you were being.
It seems you're not asking me to be polite, but voicing your desire that I shut up and not dare say anything...
It does seem that way, but I don't think that's what he really meant.