your logic is flawed, your opinions are ill-considered and aggressive
"Nobody cared about OtherOS, everyone called it gimped without direct hardware access."
"Nobody" and "everybody": making sweeping generalisations does not prove your point; where's the evidence for the claims you make?
"Now there is a hint of a cash refund (if you believe 2 sites that claim Amazon and Game gave a partial refund) every is claiming they cared, or used to run OtherOS."
This is an ad-hominem attack; where is your proof that people are acting with this motivation?
"The fact is, and any quick website search will validate this, PS3 forums with OtherOS boards were totally dead, nobody was using it."
Idle forums do not prove that nobody was using it. There's plenty of evidence that many people were using PS3's in this way; aren't there a number of research projects using clusters of PS3 for number crunching? Why should these people be denied the ability to use the hardware they have paid for in ways that they want?
Why go to the trouble of removing something nobody was using?
For "security reasons"? This needs to be justified by explaining what insecurities are being exploited and why they cannot be closed another way.
"Also it was never an advertised feature. It was never used in any formal Sony promotional material, and is not really a core console function (so is not really like "taking Blu-Ray playback away")."
"Some people need to get a grip and stop being pathetic crybaby freetards."
"they all throw their dummys out the pram."
Do you think that your argument is made more credible by vicious, petty and judgemental attacks on people you don't know? A counter-argument would be that these people are anything but cry babies because they are standing up for something that they believe is unfair.
By making your attack so personal makes it look as if you have something to lose from this lawsuit. Is that so?