I suspect what happened is the debate on this particular topic is so polarised, and everyone on either side of the discussion seems to base their entire argument on the false premise that the other side are the root of the problem, that it becomes difficult to process a view that doesn't fit one of these two stereotypes*. I'm guessing you read part of my post then made a series of assumptions (not blaming you, I also do that from time to time).
Edit, for clarity and because I like typing.
*In this case the stereotypes are:
Stereotype A = Angry at gankers, blames them for the lack of structured multiplayer. Thinks Open should have some Mobius-esque rules and/or that PvP players should be punished. Sometimes claims they'd be happy to participate in consensual RP-friendly PvP if certain ephemeral circumstances were met but that gankers make it impossible.
Stereotype B = Angry at solo/PG players, blames them for the lack of structured multiplayer. Thinks Open should be mandatory and/or that combat loggers should be punished. Sometimes claims they try to participate in consensual RP-friendly PvP based on an intrinsic honour code but that solo players and combat loggers make it impossible.
I am neither angry at gankers nor solo players, I blame Frontier for the lack of structured multiplayer. I think the modes as they currently exist are about as good as we can reasonably hope for given the wide and often irreconcilable preferences of the playerbase. I do PvP and am fully aware that its sustainability as a pastime relies on the tacit agreement of both parties. The most I wish for in this area would be the addition of mechanical stakes for PvP encounters beyond insurance costs, but Frontier has made little effort to create such structure.