[I will preface all of this by noting that I have not read every post in this thread, but certainly a majority of them.]
I will respectfully disagree with @BazaarOfBaghdad. There certainly has been a fair amount of vigorous debate with strong egos and not too much offensive content. However, I think this thread has been, in the aggregate, problematic. Specifically, having strong declarations of what people are not okay playing against, losing to, what vintage should be, etc. reflects poorly on some members at best and discourages new and potential members at worst (or maybe something worse I haven't yet considered).
I find this surprising as it comes on the heels of a celebration of JacoDrazi and cheaper competitive options as well as excitement over cards like Young Pyromancer, Monastery Mentor, Spell Queller, and other efficient creatures with abilities that affect combat math and push deck construction in a direction involving the combat phase more and more. I understand that none of these are 'hatebears,' but I find the affects similar in the long run in terms of trends in and effects on the format (in terms of critical turns, the playability of cards, sideboarding and metagame considerations, etc.).
For me, despite my being on the outskirts of the community, Vintage is marked by two things: 1. the format in which someone can play anything, not simply the most broken spells ever printed; and 2. the inclusive nature and natural camaraderie of the community that makes it a joy to play games, go to tournaments, etc.
I feel that a lot of the discussion in this thread undermines one or both of those things, is unfriendly to newer players thinking of trying out vintage, and makes me more ashamed of the community I was once so impressed by.
I'm sure not everyone feels this way, and this is simply my take on matters.