Emerikol
Adventurer
That is a bit of the nature of internet discussions. There is a tendency for discussion to drift to poles, even when the people in the discussion originally didn't start at poles.
Another was, as I had noted - exactly what you counted as "metagaming" wasn't clear. When we both use the same term, but have different meanings, that leads to confusion - specifically, it made you look inconsistent in your position, which may in part drive what you see. Others think X and Y are both metagaming. You don't. So, they see accepting X and Y together as natural, and find it very weird that you cannot.
If it took someone a year and a half to understand where you were coming from, some difficulties should have been expected.
I think when you accept metagaming as a desirable part of your play you don't spend any effort to view a mechanic as not metagame. So for example hit points, AC, or whatever. If metagame is okay then you just say it's all metagame because you spend no mental energy solving a problem you don't have. I've never viewed those as metagame precisely because I would never have come to a metagame solution for something and kept playing it. It was quiet easy though on those things to consider them information the character has. Not the names of course but the concepts which is the key for me. Mechanics that sit in an area where interpretation can dictate perspective are okay mechanics. We can just interpret differently. Some mechanics don't fit in that space though.
I also think that a lot of people did get what I was saying back then right off. Not all of them consider it a deal breaker obviously. Bawylie took a bit longer and others just never got it. I do think to give Bawylie credit he was trying whereas I think in some cases some of the others weren't. They did not want to concede that 4e had cross the line in a big way in areas where the previous editions had just flirted with the idea often in books outside the core. I don't know why because even I admitted the mechanics aren't evil or anything just different. They satisfy a different sort of playstyle desire.
One of our biggest debates was over whether I could devise a formula that would include all of my objectionable mechanics while include none of the others. For some reason they considered it incredibly important that I not be able to show that. I don't know why. My personal opinion is that I could but they disagree. It's why I made so many pre-qualifications for this topic above. I was trying to avoid the reigniting of all these debates. I was like...just solve the problem for me instead of solve it for this class of players.