I don't see a problem with that. Most of them weren't that bad just pointing out how you can end a show well and not like LOST.
Except that is all subjective opinion and not some sort of fact delivered in a courtroom setting... I love the finale for "Lost", so in my opinion they did everything right with it. "Lost" is a completely different type of series than "Breaking Bad", one with a "faith vs. science" debate and a massive cast of characters, and therefore doesn't need the same type of closure. You might as well say that "The Sopranos" needed a finale more similar to the end of "Cheers".
Each of these long running series display different tones, styles and storytelling structures, thus they each require a finale that represents that specific show. There is no one, single way to end a series, otherwise it would have been patented by now and we'd see the same thing all the time... which would be boring, by the way. And just because you didn't enjoy the "Lost" finale is not the fault of those who created it. They needed to tell the story that they wanted to tell and that's it. It's presented to an audience, it works for some and not for others, that is the result of all art. Even some people don't like "Citizen Kane", but is it worth bad-mouthing Orson Welles over it?