I think it was mostly because of comments like this, which don’t seem congruent with empirical data:
Some comments even seem to make fun of those with different preferences:
I haven’t been particularly nice either. I tend to call out errors and jabs which are probably too minor to really justify attention, and some of my comments probably sound pretty condescending.
… and after starting, the arguments continued when people doubled down instead of updating beliefs to match the data. 
To be clear, SST-20 isn’t bad. In some cases, like for some members of this thread, it’s pretty close to optimal. And that’s awesome. But that’s a somewhat atypical result, and the “obsolete” emitter seems to fit the most common case a bit better so it’s inaccurate to call it obsolete.
Of course, none of that matters for personal use. Only individual preference matters there. It’s just a bit misleading to present personal preferences as if they are true for everyone. We could avoid most of this just by weakening the wording a bit, like saying “219B is obsolete for me” instead of asserting it’s obsolete period.
But the disagreements continue because exaggerations continue:
Due to the strength of the assertions made, framing one person’s perceptions as normal and others as aberrant or nonexistent, it sounds as if being in the pink-biased part of the population is somehow bad, like there’s something wrong with people if they don’t prefer 0.000 duv to all other tints. Those people are implied to be invalid or broken. Maybe that’s not the message it was intended to convey, but if not, it would be helpful to word things a bit less aggressively.
Anyway, I hope this episode of “Today’s Argument, Abridged” answers the question adequately.