I actually spent the time to read through the entire thread (OMG its long -- kind of like my reply!), and it seems the main complaints about HOs are a variation of a theme: "I think I am better than you, but yet you managed to shoot me down, and thus I think the manner in which you did it is unfair."
Better can mean better ACMs, better situation, more E, whatever. The complainer thought he had an advantage he could press, but instead he got HOed and now the complaints start on 200.
In other words, the guy who HOed had the audacity to defend himself. You were trying to BnZ him, and he turned into you. You tried to merge on his 6, and he turned into you. You were heading at him like a dart, and darn it, he didn't play the good little target and turn away first.
So, IMO, if you have an advantage and it looks like the target is going to HO you, the burden is on you to avoid and go look for another target. And BTW, you can ALWAYS avoid a HO -- it usually just means you are still toasted, just on another side of the bread. In such a case, why not try to take your executioner out with you?
The "you should learn ACMs" arguments seem to be the least valid. I am happy for and I salute everyone who hones his or her skills until you have turned yourself into a killing machine. But you cannot expect the enemy to cooperate at all times and yield to your advantage.
In the American Revolution, the colonials often had the audacity to hide behind trees and snipe with rifles from 200 yards instead of stand in the open 30 yards away from the Redcoats and get blasted. How dare they not fight according to the rules of war?
T-34s at Kursk charged the Tigers and engaged at point blank range, at times ramming the German tanks instead of sitting back letting the Tigers pick them off at 2 kilometers. Those peskie Ruskies should know that isn't the right way to conduct armored warfare.
More than a few Japanese planes used no ACMs whatsoever when they dove into the St. Lo, the Franklin and etc. That's no way to properly use a bomber!
So-called "insurgents" in Iraq use roadside bombs against US and coalition troops. Don't they know they are supposed to congregate in one place where superior US firepower can deal with them properly?
Now you are in the MA and want to engage in a fencing match, but your target wants to joust. The nerve of some people.
Things never change. There is no point in whining about it.
So to answer ICU2's original question, IMO, there is nothing "wrong" with a HO. Don't worry about the "stigma". The complainers will complain no matter what happens. And anyway, none has your home address, so they can't come beat you up if you annoy them.
Whether a HO is a "smart" thing to do as a "matter of course" is amply answered by the following:
"you have collided with Target"
"Target has collided with you"
But that is the subject of another thread!
