It really isn't. The argument has nothing to do with wanting the old FTL back, so stop strawmanning. It's a complete misrepresentation of the argument to say that wanting FTL inhibitors to work differently is equivalent to wanting multiple types of FTL back.
It has to do with it in that case :
Outright removing planetary FTL inhibitors would make sniping shipyards possible again, with nearly as much efficiency as if you had warp.
Regarding the proposal to make the inhibition a FTL debuff instead of the obligation of landing armies, it is trading a timer for another so I would ask why even bother?
And yes, planetary FTL inhibitors are blockers - they block all hyperlanes from being used except the one used to enter the system.
Only if you refuse to land those damn armies. An enemy fleet will be as much a blocker if you don't send yours.
I don't think you understand that having to follow the hyperlane network means that the defender can set-up effective chokepoints. That's the whole point of the reason hyperlane network was chosen to be the default FTL.
Getting a fortress at mid-way between a foe and a target on a n hyperlanes path is as effective as getting the same fortress at the target location against a foe with warp. Or less if the target has defensive abilities.
I don't appreciate the imagery in that message - why are you talking about choking someone, and me in particular? That really has no bearing on our discussion about a game?
Could be anyone's throat really, including mine. I found the image amusing since speaking about a game's chokepoints, the example demonstrate how a chokepoint can be used to inhibit 100% of something, which you seem to still not be willing to allow. But I guess this is too serious a topic.
By the way, nozzles actually increase flow rate of the flowing fluid.
Nozzles increase velocity, not flow rate of a fluid. You're creating energy out of thin air and I should "brush up on my basic physics"? By the way the fluid is said to be "choked" in the "noozzle's throat". See the link?
Further, with regard to semantics, the word we are talking about is inhibit, not chokepoint, or had you forgotten that?
Yes, but in the overall context of chokepoints. How would it bear on our discussion about a game otherwise? I was not playing grammar nazi you know? But you seem to have difficulties to grasp that a chokepoint can and must be used by the defender to try and apply any kind of inhibition at disposal, ideally up to 100% to prevent, slow down at worse, the enemy from further advancing.
I don't think you know what a strawman is.
Telling me spartans at Thermopylae could not do anything about the battle at Salamis because they are foot soldiers, not naval ships, to prove me wrong, conveniently disregarding that only tech level and equipment prevented them to do such a thing, is clearly not a strawman.