Looks like I need to make a clarification here.
You singled out a comment that I made, but without the context of the
rest of my post, it does not hold the same meaning as I originally intended.
Hydrogenaudio is a debate community. I founded upon these principles, and have tried to foster these principles throughout its growth. What this means is that when people make a claim to something (or present an idea, software, etc), it
does not stand on its own. It stands upon the strength of the arguments made in its support and in its merit and relevance towards addressing certain issues.
In other words, not all ideas are created equal. Not all people need to be given the same "rights" or attention in what they say
simply because they do say it. Maybe in some other communities, this is how it works, but in Hydrogenaudio (as well as academia, and the scientific and the philosophical community), simply because someone chances to say something does not guarantee that people acknowledge their claims as having some worth.
This, I think, is the fundamental problem here, and this also relates to my original statement. In the context of "best of breed", what I mean is ideas, software, etc., that have been through this processed and have held up. They are "good" or "better" for a specific and non-arbitrary reason. I also expect reasonable participants in this community to acknowledge these points. I
do not expect them to
necessarily agree with them, but if they choose not to, they better have a good reason.
Arbitrary "opinion" does not rule here, and if you have been under this impression, then you have been mistaken.
Given your example of cars, in line with what I have been saying it would hold that there are prevailing arguments for
why one would be better than the other (or more correlated, more developed towards, etc... if you choose to use some other type of language) for given purposes. If someone is to advance an opposing point of view, then they need to address these points. If they have different needs which preclude the use of the "prevailing argument", then they need to make that clear from the start -- not ask a question and then reject certain answers simply "because they don't like them." That's not how this community works, and I hope that it never degenerates to that point.
So to address your mistaken conception:
Of course HA does not believe that there is only "one" approach to a specific top level categorial case. However, given the specific premises, there
are better conclusions than others. These conclusions are not derived from arbitrary opinion either, and this community expects (or at least I do) that people recognize that and argue and debate accordingly.
There is no free lunch around here, and everyone is not "right" in their own opinions -- opinions can be wrong and ill-founded. If you can't handle this, but would rather choose to misconstrue the situation as being something it is not, and the admins as being some sort of tyrants, theres not much I can do beyond pointing out the truth of the matter. If you decide that you'd rather not participate under these mistaken directives, then it's regretable, but ultimately it'll be your loss.