Perhaps you should try an experiment and go over to the TOS message board and say something like this:
TOS was a great show, but come on...Was it really a ground-breaking show? Or was it just an adventure show geared toward kids? I love TOS a whole bunch...but if we're going to be honest TNG had more seasons because TNG turned out to be better to most people than TOS. And there's nothing wrong with that, you know, different strokes.
I bet all of those open minded TOS fans would come back and say, "You know, you're so right. Good point there, buddy. No argument here!"
Seriously though, I rather enjoy the discussion and debate as long as it doesn't get personal. I guess I'm weird like that.
What I would like you to do is seriously ask yourself why you fabricated and inserted this part;
"...was it really a ground-breaking show? Or was it just an adventure show geared toward kids?"
Was there anything analogous in what I was saying to this?
Before I respond to individual points...
Good god man, I have no idea how to begin addressing this tangential diatribe. Factions split off from TNG
The topic of discussion is whether the article's presentation of the facts was legitimate or not. Try to stay on point. I maintain that several points in the article can be proven false. I will elaborate if you wish to challenge that statement.