Yeah I believe he would have liked the rules to be more inline with his own criteria, I can certainly relate, I've had a few of these moments myself.I don't think either of us are attacking anyone.
This is a simple misunderstanding.
He stated what he was feeling. The term he chose to describe his feeling is the same as the tag. I do not believe this is by coincidence.
You did come across as somewhat aggressive/defensive (at least to my eye), especially with that little jab about my due diligence. , But no hard feelings on my end, the written medium can be hellish to interpret, the soft tones, mischievous smiles and joking chuckles don't always communicate clearly, particularly when we have no idea where each other is coming from or what head spaces we are currently in.The reason I responded, was to point out that how he was feeling has no relevance, as far as tags are concerned.
I simply said that how he was feeling was not in line with how the site applies the tag.
Simply put: "I think it should be on hold" does not equate to it should be on hold.
If there is no valid reason for it to be "on hold", then there is no reason to state it as one's opinion.
It's like pissing into the wind...
(and that's before we throw in typos, weird grammar and different levels of education across a multilingual world)