You seem to be bending over backwards to make that work, though. Playing the devils advocate is all fine and well, but you do need to know where your argument is headed.
"Just pointing out flaws" is a good thing, too, but it would help to balance that with an equal amount of discussing his argument.
I think his argument is sound even though he doesn't have a pleasant way of arguing it. But similar to the point he is making about FOSS Projects - in that they do tell people "Either you're helping, or using, or you're not helpful", you are not helpful.
If you insist on being a "consumer" of a FOSS project, you insist on being something that they have no use for. That's your decision. You cannot argue that that is their problem.
I disagree. Someone else boiled it down better: are OSS projects immune to criticism merely because you can fix them, given enough time? No. Doesn't matter whether you can argue it pleasantly or not.
Yes, I think I replied to that branch of the comments as well.
And again: No, they are not immune to criticism, they have just set up a way in which criticism is handled in a particular manner, ie. channeled into discussions or in hands-on fixing. If you don't use either, you don't need to act surprised that they don't appreciate your criticism.
Don't really see how you came to this conclusion. The very bug that's linked in this story was filed in the proper forum more than half a decade ago (i.e. it's a counter-evidence to your assertion).
