On the whole HDR vs non-HDR thing, at some point it's moot. All this stuff about high vs low dynamic range isnt going to matter in a few years. Already cameras are able to capture higher and higher dynamic ranges, and at some point it seems likely that you will not need more than 1 exposure.
The "problem" is not so much in the capture of the dynamic range of a scene, whether it is performed by using a capable sensor in a single exposure or combining multiple exposures, but in the display of that data once acquired.
While cameras are getting more and more capable of capturing larger and larger ranges of the scene in a single shot, printing on paper is still only going to get you a dynamic range of a couple orders of magnitude. Displays a little more, although in the last few years the push for HDR display is gaining traction, but not accessible to the average consumer.
So, there will always be a need for tonal range compression - the black art often associated with "HDR" regardless of the actual "H"ness of the "DR" of a scene. Until the output devices we use to display our HDR data catch up with the data itself and let our visual system do the tonal compression, we will have to rely upon admittedly more and more flexible tonal compression schemes, ironically the most natural of which mimic the TRC of ... film!
As to the point regarding critique, I agree with you colinm85 and that was the point of my previous posts. I was not trying to minimize the feelings of the folks who reacted negatively, jus trying to point out that criticism is in the eye of the beholder and is what it is.
kirk
Gripped, 50mm f/1.8, 18-55mm f/4-5.6, 24-105mm 
