Their comments are valid as anecdotal evidence that not everyone thinks that the paragraph fragment is a big deal or a clear cut statement that BadDM advice is being given, nor do they agree with your position.
If I thought all people agreed with me, wouldn't this thread come as a surprise? Seriously, wouldn't your objections by themselves already prove the point you're stating here? Did I say that there were only 3 people that disagreed with me, and not 8? Not 9?
And a further irony is, what, theoretically, would stop you right now from completely lying about your motives for what you wrote about your friends? The reason the DM in example said what he said was NOT what he told the player. Why, as some anonymous person on a message board, would I be more entitled to honesty about your motives than the player in the example?
If I take you at your word about your intentions, your statements about your friends feelings are redundant. And I never intended to prove that the *aren't* players out there that don't mind being lied to.
Ok, then let me restate... are you still arguing over what amounts to a poorly worded bit of text that is less than a paragraph?
Not any more. I'm arguing now about what IMO are weak rationalizations for the aforementioned text. And that it wasn't poorly worded at all, but instead very obvious about what it was trying to communicate. Which is why you're defending it AFAICT. If what was written was "ahfasdlfj", why would you be defending it?
We get it. The advice is poorly worded. It should have been clearer. You want to keep harping on lying and deceit and malicious intent.
Actually, you don't seem to "get it". First of all, I don't don't agree that it was "poorly worded", unless that's what you mean when someone says something foolish - which is not what I think "poorly worded" means. The conditions established by Wyatt, and his proposed solution, were pretty clear.
"When a player says something out of character, hit him with a water balloon". That's not poorly worded. It's just foolish.
Secondly, harping is completely subjective. Why aren't you harping on my harping? That characterization obscures the real issues. No one is forcing you to read or write anything.
Thirdly, "malicious intent" is not the issue. The intent of the DM, as I think we all agree, is to protect his plot, and preserve the "fun" of the game.
Help me understand what you think the intent of the writers were.
I think you need to make a distinction between intent and consequences. If you keep mixing those up, you won't understand what I'm trying to say.
For example: If someone is going to drive to work at 150 mph down the highway, and I say "they're going to kill someone". You arguing about the fact that they didn't *intend* to, and are only trying to get to work quickly, is missing the point. And if you're so hung up about getting to work on time, that you can't set your alarm, and have no respect for anyone else on the road, and think it's your "right" to act however you want to solve your immediate problem because "your intentions are good", then you are largely missing the point of what I'm saying.
Let me ask this. Which of these do you believe, one or more:
It was the intent of James Wyatt (or whoever wrote this bit) to state..
1. that you should regularly lie to your players whenever you want your story to progress despite the players creative efforts?
Strictly speaking, Wyatt said it was ok to lie to them when the conditions that he established existed. If A then do B. Whether or not A is a regular occurance in your campaign is something I don't know.
Also "regularly" depends on the context. I regularly breathe. Also regularly sleep. In a campaign with interesting things going on frequently, I think the DM is going to be confronted with the unknown pretty regularly.
2. that you should regularly nerf or squash your players plans whenever they use a game mechanic that could catch you unprepared?
He didn't say anything about the player's *plans*. The player had his character do something, and the DMs adjucation of the action had *nothing* to do with either the rules or the definition of "DMing" that was established in the PHB, or the advice on "good DMing" that was described in other sections of the DMG. The player's action may, or may not have been part of a "plan" - doesn't really matter to what I'm saying.
3. that you should lie and say it was the players fault for not using the ritual right, and do this as often as you see fit.
Yes, there were no limitations put on this action by Wyatt. "If the player is going to throw a monkey wrench into your plans, do this." That's pretty much as "often as you see fit." I'm not arguing that Wyatt is suggesting that you lie to your players for no reason.
4. that you should lie to your players and nerf their abilities this one time, but still blame it on the player for messing it up.
No, not "this one time". There's nothing in the conditions established that makes the DMs response less likely in the future. Nothing that makes this situation a unique occurence over the entire career of the DM. In fact, the conditions are sufficiently broad enough that, as other's have pointed out, they could equally apply to the PCs rolling a bunch of criticals against a BBEG that "throws a monkey wrench into your plan".
5. that, despite following the previous pages of advice, if you didn't plan your adventure accordingly, and if a the use of a ritual caught you off guard and it would ruin your entire adventure (either for just tonight or for the long term), that it's OK to interpret the results in a way that keeps the game going in a direction that you can offer the group the most fun?
But that really begs the question - because if you HAD been paying attention to the other advice, the actual premise that the DMs plans are the sole definition of what is "fun" is bogus. The idea that the DM needs to stick to plans conceived a month ago is bogus. There's so much that's bogus about the very premise that's used to rationalize this recommended action.
I am curious what you thought they MEANT to state. If you know they meant no harm or meant no ill intent for the players, then why make a big deal out of this?
For the same reason that my driving late to work analogy describes. In fact, if all you need to do is INTEND to do good then there is no reason for advice in the DMG, right? I think we all agree that the DMs intentions were to protect his "plot". He didn't intend to disrespect the players. That doesn't make what he did ok. This is Ethics 101 and is a logical point.
Those "certain things" things that you're talking about are lying. And bad DMing. So I think we all agree with your assessment here, it's just that your nebulous language conveniently side-steps the core issues. 
