Dude, I could quote just about as many posts as youve had in the last 10 pages to prove my point, but most of them have been quoted and disputed in a very similar way to how I would respond now. If you are unsure how I feel, how about re-reading a bit and see how wainds, The Butt, and CIG have responded to some of the stuff you said.
A large part of your argument stemmed upon the idea of bands properly interpreting the influence of proto-metal from the late 60s and early 70s. Metal was an open book at this point, so why even try to encapsulate the meaning of metal by bands (and seriously, who other than Sabbath at this point?) that were just trying to push the limits of rock? The metal styles with extreme vocals that you are complaining about evolved a bit later on, mostly influenced by NWOBHM, thrash, and hardcore punk. You mentioned failed genres such as metalcore and deathcore as a way to find discordance in our own judgment and exploit it to mean that we were are as judgmental as you, and that alike we both draw the line but in a different place. What you are basically trying to say is that only metal from the mid 70s to early 80s is metal, and pretty much everyone but a couple of bands that fit your taste have all misinterpreted the original message of what constitutes metal (a claim distinction that none of us have tried to make). You may not be able to accept my accusation of you being close-minded, but im sure that anyone here would agree that you are being exactly that. I think that your problem is that you are trying to justify your viewpoint through metal history, and the evolution of the genre completely contradicts what you are trying to prove. Im ok with you not liking any sort of harsh vocals, but clearly they are as much part of metal as is any progressions made by guitar, bass, drums, production, etc. TL;DR - Your reasons arent fair or rational, and were completely biased against liking harsh vocals.