Let us consider a premise...
this premise is that "no one wants SC to die," it then follow from this that "everyone wants what is best for the game" to be more or less true as well.
Considering these two premises, it is logical to conclude that there is some room to compromise, and I will start by apologizing for airing my dirty laundry in public. In exchange for this, I hope Laguna will allow me to explain to him why I interpreted certain things as I did.
Next, I do not think SC would benefit in any way from either Laguna or myself being wiped out, nor the collateral damage that would ensue from peripheral parties, nor would either the time of Laguna or myself be served best this way. Don't get me wrong, I would love to do this some time, but not this way. May was different. May was supposed to spark something, and in certain ways it did, although the effects have been mixed.
Finally, Laguna and I have decidedly different stances on how to breathe life into the game, but we both agree that running new players off is not one of them. I think this is another common ground, and should be a place that we can talk.
As for this, I'm leaving the ball in Laguna's court, and he replied to me in IRC that he only wished for the "situation [with newer players] to be resolved." I think that's the more important issue.
It takes a lot for me to abandon an aloof standpoint and start leveling accusations of this and that, and I think it shows two things: firstly how widely Laguna and I differ in opinion on how things ought to be done, but second and more importantly, the persistent feeling that this could be a really good game but it just keeps missing its potential.
So, for all this, I withdraw my harsh words and I apologize. I still admit that Laguna and I have some very divergent ideas, but that I would like to explore them. And perhaps some day when the greater problem of the game is fixed we can arrange a fun time with each other.