So to recap, you bring up an example to prove your point, and I shoot multiple holes through it, but you just pretend like the fact that you no longer have evidence supporting you doesn't change the situation in the discussion.
Again, you revert to generalities. I'm not going to argue there is never a reason for a fork. LibreOffice itself is proof that forking make sense sometimes. However, each situation is different. One interesting note is that there is no effort inside LibreOffice where people are complaining and wanting to fork. This is the sort of evidence that is relevant that I doubt you have considered.
You don't seem to understand my point about spaghetti sauce. With two divergent office suites, you could get a situation where people want bits from both suites. This situation can't happen with spaghetti sauce, but it can happen with software. When a software fork happens, it could make both products worse.
You don't need separate teams to add new features. Any good feature can be done in LO. You call this a false dichotomy, but I'm just trying to get you to understand the basic point that software is infinitely malleable, which is why the spaghetti sauce analogy to OO / LO is dangerously wrong. In any case, it is so fricking silly to compare tomato sauce to office software.
Another point you don't seem to realize is given that LO can take anything good from OO, but not the reverse, it will create a situation where LO will in general be provably better than. OO + LO > OO This is simple math. This is already true because LO has a head-start, a bigger and better development team, and the support of the community, but it will remain true over time because of the license agreement. It appears that this is also ignored by you.
You conclude with a totally irrelevant list of other "forks" as proof that this one is a good idea: LXDE vs. KDE, etc. Each situation is different.
In order to believe your ideas, you have to ignore a lot of specific information and think only in irrelevant generalities. You have an interesting perspective and method of reasoning. Your last sentence is illustrative:
"There is no reason to assume that office suites are different."