Yes it's amazingly patronizing to assume that the people were wrong given I rarely see any statistical evidence or usability studies behind GNOME changes. It's quite possible they were right and the GNOME devs were wrong. Or, even more likely, that they are both right for two different groups and that feature X could perhaps be removed from an icon bar but not from a submenu.
Too often in the past GNOME removed the availability of a feature entirely. The people using that feature "owned" it, thus following the first quote the removal impinged on their "property", and then the GNOME devs would insult people for wanting it because it was "wrong", impinging on their "honour". It's only through assuming GNOME devs are infallible and the people are wrong that allows this guy to use the second quote, which boils down to "children want their toys", to cancel the first and then "smilingly fall back in my chair and enjoy reading mean comments with a bag of popcorn".
Also I agree with the others regarding the lack of capitalization, but I suppose we are all "wrong" on this.
Too often in the past GNOME removed the availability of a feature entirely. The people using that feature "owned" it, thus following the first quote the removal impinged on their "property", and then the GNOME devs would insult people for wanting it because it was "wrong", impinging on their "honour". It's only through assuming GNOME devs are infallible and the people are wrong that allows this guy to use the second quote, which boils down to "children want their toys", to cancel the first and then "smilingly fall back in my chair and enjoy reading mean comments with a bag of popcorn".
Also I agree with the others regarding the lack of capitalization, but I suppose we are all "wrong" on this.