Why bother? you've already very effectively demonstrated that you're not actually capable of any kind of real productive analysis. This is nothing more than a pathetic PR event, and the tone of your answers has proved it solidly.
The very fact that you can't accept the fundamental difference between subjective and objective judgement makes any attempt at rational conversation basically impossible.
So really, my only remaining question is, "Why the hell are you wasting everyone's time?"
I might be able to shed some light on this -- we reached a sort of similar conclusion in a discussion with luke on rpg.net; I think quite a bit of the indie dialog goes like this:
luke bases his understanding of gaming on his personal experiences (like we all do) -- but unlike most people, he believes that his observations about things like the negative impact of the traditional model are backed up by scientific evidence: his anecdotal experience.
I think the inability to distinguish annecdotal evidence from actual scientific evidence leads a *lot* of indie theorists to draw some bizarre and counter-intuitive conclusions.
Consider: many people come to indie games because, for whatever reason, the traditional model doesn't work well for them. When they look around in the hobby, they see what appears to be overwhelming evidence that the traditional model is dangerous and broken: *every* gamer they talk to has a horror story to tell!
Now, of course, what's really happening is classic observer bias. They're filtering out all the positive stories and focusing on the negative ones. They're also ignoring evidence that any failure to have fun is a personal thing, and focusing on their belief that it's the game that's responsible.
Several years of this convinces them that the traditional model of gaming is responsible for mass dysfunction and an avalanche of psychological trauma and dread.
But it's impossible to fail to see that games like D&D, White Wolf, and so-on are actually hugely popular.
If you're not aware of factors like observer bias, and consider anecdotal evidence scientific, you'd reach the same conclusion: those gamers must be delusional, co-dependent, etc. etc. etc.
It's a logical conclusion, but one based on bad data and a bad understanding of research methods.
Personally, I think the root of the problem is any formulation of human nature that blames something like a game system for on-going human-interaction problems, but certainly the failure to understand that the most-logical conclusion (that D&D is popular because it's fun) is (in the absence of real data) the best one.
Cheers,
-E.