Let's go back to the original question and my answer that started this discussion. The question was:
Is there a point at which the process gets in the way and becomes an end unto itself?
To which I answered (emphasis on what I meant to say):
Heavy processes are common, unfortunately. Some people - especially management - religiously imagine that processes produce products. So they overdo the processes and forget that it's really a handful of hard-working, smart people who actually create the products. For upper management, it's frightening to even think that their business is in the hands of few geeks, and so the close their eyes from the reality and think of their dear "process" instead, which gives them the illusion of control.
In other words: Since it's really a handful of hard-working, smart people who actually create the products, obviously the process can get in way if it's too heavy. While I (and quite a few colleagues) like to emphasize the people, some (not-so-good) managers tend to think too much in terms of the process. That's the reason for overly heavy processes. The reason that (some not-so-good) managers prefer to overemphasize the process is that it is (or at least seems to be) controllable. Real people are way more difficult to control than some abstract process. Regardless, it's the real people that produce products, not the process.
All the above is said in my original answer, even if somewhat colorfully worded. I don't think there's any particularly significant or outrageous statement. It's mostly common sense written out.
Some folks seem to read it like this:
Heavy processes are common, unfortunately. Some people - especially management - religiously imagine that processes produce products. So they overdo the processes and forget that it's really a handful of hard-working, smart people who actually create the products. For upper management, it's frightening to even think that their business is in the hands of few geeks, and so the close their eyes from the reality and think of their dear "process" instead, which gives them the illusion of control.
If you take only the "anti-managerial tone" from the post, then of course it looks like a stupid rant. Maybe, just maybe, a more neutral tone should be preferred. But on the other hand, I prefer reading strongly written, concentrated statements instead of shy ones. People shouldn't be ashamed of their own biases.
My answer is not very good; it's certainly below my average answer quality (but some answers have to be below the average!), and its lack of quality is emphasized by the number of upvotes it got, which may be seem to be undeserved (but it's not certainly my fault). Still, calling it "mindless, populist drivel" is clearly a result of reading only the colorful part of it and missing the main point.