>>That is absolutely not the feeling I get. Some examples are message #885930, message #885938 and message #885996.
>
>As I read those, they are arguments for dealing with the current well-defined behavior, instead of calling it broken. They don't argue for not changing it.
>
>And they definitely don't support the idea of hacking the runtimes.

C'mon Garrett, the referenced threads all call the guy a lazy lousy programmer. Some say it outright and other take a long-winded diatribe to do the same.

He suggested, in possibly his best English, that it would be a good idea to have the feature. Later he made the fatal mistake of saying that he considered it a BUG. Then the piling on REALLY started.

There are people who clearly do not like the guy. Rather than ignore his posts OR bite their tongues and respond civilly they take swipes at the guy.