Using Hysteria in that sense has pretty much been abandoned by the medical community since 1980.
Thank you for this piece of information (I am quite aware that dr Charcot work is controversial and outdated, but I think the term is still in use to describe the same kind of symptoms).
I would definitely not call it polite, nor appropriate in the kind of discussion we're trying to have here. I am also quite sure I would get into serious trouble if I were to use it in a professionnal context, and that it is easier to call people names when you are in the comfort of the internet, rather than, say, at
arm length of the bloke you're addressing.
Steeldragons remark about Shemeska's interventions was spot on in my opinion. Dismissing it as hysterical is as rude as it is not constructive.
Having plenty of lore is interesting.
Being very knowledgeable is impressive.
BUT seeing this lore as "the true story of the setting" is offensive as far as i m concerned. For me D&D is a toolbox (and I am definitely not alone in this) and the incorporation of fluff in my toolbox made me reject 2e. You can't possibly claim it's a gold standard for the umbrella edition Next is aiming at, without seriously alienating a part of the players base. Calling these players "hysterical" will definitely not solve the issue.
Making very strong claims in the "core books" on the fluff runs contrary to the claim "every design is local" . If we were to promote local design, fluff, be it Planescape, has to adopt a posture of modesty and recede in the background a little.