You claim something I didn't say

I am sorry if it sounds like that. I tried to make it clear that is how it sounds, not what it is, if I missed the mark I am sorry. You did not say that, I said it sounds like that to me and maybe to others. I asked to rephrase because it sounds bad, you wouldn't need to rephrase if it sounded and was bad. Anyways, sorry if it sounded like putting words in your mouth, I take misunderstanding like that serious.

You did not say "Strong people have a right others do not. They do not want their backdoor closed" I am the one who said that to a casual like me it sounds like that.

don't even seem to understand what a backdoor in software is

No one said it is a backdoor in software. It is a backdoor in governance baked into the governance.

Dismissing it as "not a backdoor" (let us call something else if you have a better name) because it is not a software exploit per se or because it is baked into the software is a disengagement I did not expect. The wording doesn't change the meaning but if you have a better word I can rephrase that.

Backdoors are everywhere, in laws that allow presidents to take and maintain power, in companies that can sue you if you use their product wrong, those are all backdoors in my view but we can use another word if you have it. Point is, it is still a backdoor (word subject to changing) even if everyone agrees, even if it is intentional and known, and even if no code exploit is needed.

Other than that we may agree to disagree that it is a flaw or not, if its important or if a fix should exist or not. Despite the disengagement due to the word I think I understand your position about the belief in the stake and the consensus.

Edit: typos and phrasings, I respect blocktrades too much to leave typos and ambiguity, even with an edit it may not be perfect phrasing