It doesn't seem you read the thread through...if you had, you would have seen
@Hussar s point that if it really is all about opinion, then none of it matters, at least when discussing "samey-ness." He has several posts where he makes this point, and quite well.
Instead, it's discussing if the edition has a particular quality, and then, if it has such a quality that is distinctive in a way that makes it substantially different or worse than other editions. If the term is simply a placeholder for "that which I like/dislike" then there's no discussion to be had; just statements of opinion, which go nowhere.
Several people in the thread, including people who didn't like 4e, tried to engage with the former idea though. And it's interesting to examine it and see if 2 editions are factually similar in main ways, but feel different, then what is the aspect that makes them feel different. This is where people tried to focus on presentation, but were told, no, it's not the presentation. So, then what is it?
No one is telling anyone else
what they should think. I am going to point out, though, that if one criticizes A for trait Z, and B also has trait Z but that gets overlooked, that that is inconsistent criticism. Doesn't mean A is great, but it is a hint that whatever is off with A has to do with something other than trait Z. Doesn't change one's opinion on the game, but it does, potentially, debunk an argument about why the game sucks.
Hopefully that's clearer.
The rest of your post ("Grand project," "amazing and awesome power," etc.) is just childish nonsense.