It is the devotees of Cyclecraft who insist on turning subsequent postings into a moral battle to defend their holy book.
Whereas your approach is more Da Vinci Code: hints, secrets, false clues and misdirection, with the true story only revealed through patient unteasing and no small amount of luck

Do you really think giving advice that only makes sense taken in conjunction with a comment made in a completely different part of the site is an effective approach? And you an engineer!
More seriously, I think you fundamentally misunderstand where the people disagreeing with you are coming from. There are no "Cyclecraft devotees". I skimmed it briefly a while ago, thought "yup, that's good advice, it's pretty much what I'd advise a nervous cyclist", and put it back on the shelf. It's main value to me is in providing a handy common terminology.
As Paul says, people aren't disagreeing with you because you disagree with cyclecraft. They are disagreeing with you from their own experience.