Since the Edition Wars began, I've had some questions:
What fronts have seen the most fighting?
What are the crucial military objectives? And have any been destroyed?
Who are the major generals and heroes of the conflict?
Has new technology been introduced that has given one side an advantage over the other?
Who are the neutrals?
Has any side been pushed to a wartime economy (rationing, hyperproduction, conscription, etc.)?
Has there ever been a Edition Cold War with threats of mutually assured destruction?
Most importantly: Who's winning?
If you've answered any or all of these questions with "What hell are you talking about?", then there really isn't any Edition War at all--just a bunch of people arguing about the best edition of a role playing game! I understand that EN World rules forbid people from arguing about politics and religion, but there are far more important things to argue about than D&D.
Frankly, if I was faced with a choice of not playing D&D and playing an edition I don't like very well, I'd still play the edition I don't like very well. Because I rather play. D&D is a game; is meant to be played.
I've been booed for even showing the 4e books. When expressing my distaste for 4e, somebody patted me on the back for "seeing the light." Somebody yelled at me for even expressing an interest for playing AD&D: "AD&D sucks! You can get experience buy just dumping boiling water on an anthill! Stick with 3.5e!" When I announced my 3.5e campaign, a player joined and then began griping about how 4e is better than 3.5e.
So, in response to all those people who have a "holier than thou" attitude when it comes to a certain edition and feel that they must share their viewpoint with ridicule and condemnation, I will quote Bob Newhart from a classic Mad TV skit:
STOP IT!