Insisting that "you're more deluded than we are" is a cute attempt to counterattack, straight from the book of debating dirty tricks marked "ad hominem attacks", but amounts to just another shot in the edition wars.
You are trying to skew and spin what I have said into something I did not. I did not say, "you're more deluded than we are."
I'm saying that the notion of a person assuming or implying that someone who disagrees with you is practicing self-deception due to the fact that they don't agree with you seems to be extremely lacking in perspective. It's an arrogant viewpoint of, "I'm right! If they can't see it, then it's because they don't want to see it, or are too deceived to see it!"
It's not only assuming that you are infallible in something that is as subjective as a matter of aesthetics or taste, but it also makes assumptions on what the other person is thinking.
You misunderstand my meaning, I think. To be clear, I did not mean to imply people who like the game are any more deluded than I am. But saying 4E is deficient in some way will lead to all manner of defense from you guys, though, so it's hard to argue that you're comfortable with such subjective points being raised (thus the description "uncomfortable").
You still seem to be implying the same thing, which is that there is such an emotional investment that 4E players have to either delude themselves into thinking a criticism is without merit or squirm at some criticism you lobbed at us as though it is an objective truth, rather than a matter of taste.
There are lots of criticisms of 4E that I disagree with. There are many that paint a skewed picture of the game system which have a hint of truth but are tainted by spin and bias. There are criticisms that I sympathize with, but feel that even though I can understand the criticism, I understand why it is the way it is and feel that it's a reasonable (or even sometimes a hard but good) choice by the designers.
And there are some criticisms I'd say, "yeah, I feel the same way on that, so I just house rule that."
What I find uncomfortable is not critical assessment and discussing the flaws and merits of a game, how it can be improved, or what other games can be played (or borrowed from) to get the style of game that I want. These are not absolutes anyway, but usually matters of taste.
However, antagonistic behavior, trolling, being belittled over my choice of game, or being attacked as a player in such a way that I'm put on the defensive for my choice, that is uncomfortable.
I don't want to argue about what game system is better, and I've continuously said they all have something to offer. There'd be no 4E without 3E, just like there'd be no 3E without 2E.
I don't even like arguing about arguing...