I will admit, I did miss your first message. But it was already responded to, with links to the bugs tracking the things that would have provided the functionality you requested.

> All of this could have been averted by simply offering an alternative API in the same browser version in which the new restriction was implemented.

You mean like manifests v2, which wasn't affected?

I will also note, it was this comment in particular that set me off:

> It must be possible to prevent a patch from being released in the stable version of Firefox. You must be aware that this change will make it difficult to port extensions that need to access arbitrary page content. Extension developers have enough work on their hands already, and we shouldn't need to spend more time submitting feature requests and then defending use cases that are already obvious to your team.

This kind of "I demand you do what I want, and I'm going to refuse any attempt to answer why you should" comment is one that I believe it reasonable for a developer to ignore.