First off, regardless of if any of those observations are true, you being a representative of the company would never admit it. Why waste our time there, you are paid to not hold any of those views regardless of validity of lack there of.
On the contrary, I started out as a miner and was, while not equally skeptical of BFL in the beginning as some people, indeed quite skeptical. I have been a big open source advocate and support the "community" both in and out side of bitcoin. I am on the side of the miners, not on the side of business. Believe it or not, I advocate the miners perspective inside the company here. However, with that position I also have to weigh that against the best interests of the business and find a balance that both sides can live with (note, I do not say are happy with. As someone said, though I can't recall to whom I should attribute the quote, Twain perhaps and I'm paraphrasing regardless "A successful negotiation is where both parties leave unhappy.") and allow the business to continue to function and grow.
I suspect I might be able to anticipate your response to this, but perhaps not... so I'll leave it there for now.
Here has been my issued and it ties into and fits with your business model from my perspective. I have been around the block and I know how many dominate players act. It is about trying to corner the ASIC market and be a monopoly. I do hold and still hold that BFL intentionally announced their ASIC line with grossly overstated delivery schedules with mostly the sole reason to chill competition in the space. I support this chilling effect by the fact you not only gave a timeline that was 10 months off the mark but also the specifications you gave made it best in class just like your FPGA line. With the large upfront costs that go into developing an ASIC, if you would of actually delivered on time, it would of greatly reduced any ongoing competition because of BFL ability to raise the difficulty level faster than anyone else so that if you could continue to do that you would push people to develop on increasing more expensive chip sizes.
Ok, lets grant your position for a minute as being true and look at it from that perspective. As a business entity acting in it's own best interest, why would a business not do that if it were a way to ensure it's own survival? If that were an effective tactic (and you say it is, so I'll take your word on it), to not use it and allow competition to consume your marketshare would be incredibly stupid. Why would you expect a business to act in a manner that is directly in conflict with it's own continued existence? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
The reality is, though, that the timeline and specs that were offered were believed to be true at the time. If I were around at the time, I would have pushed for a more extended timeline with more flexibility, just like I am pushing for the Monarch now. I am not the final say in this company by any means, my word carries weight but it does not carry the day when that day ends. I am an advocate for the miner here within BFL, but I'm also aware of the needs of business, which most, if not all, of the detractors are completely oblivious to or just do not want to acknowledge.
You speak of change, and that's great. But the cost of that change is the insolvency at worst or severely deteriorating business. There is no business in this market that can operate in the altruistic manner you appear to want. BFL is not a charity or a non-profit organization, it's a for profit business. Acting against that would be nonsensicle and once people finally come to accept and understand that bitcoin is now a business and not some pie-in-the-sky dream of libertarians (much to their chagrin, I'm sure), perhaps the fervor and irrationality may die down a bit, but that day is probably a long way off. But just because the world isn't the way you want the world to be (I'm using the royal "you" here, not you specifically) is not an excuse for you to be an asshat on the internet. It's those people I do not care for or respect.