It looks to me, that what I asked all around the topic was: "I personally found Mono useful, and the FUD that was told about Mono is as equal for Qt/Nokia, or Apple/Clang, wasn't it?" Also, some claims (like the startup time), I tested them and I found them lacking (because people think to Mono as "enterprisey", so all Mono applications are by definition slow), I rembember the Amarok + QtCreator was like 21 seconds, when Banshee and MonoDevelop was like 14-15 seconds.
Also, I've wrote things that disagree with Miguel on his page, so taking this into perspective is equal like an alter-ego of Miguel enters on his page to criticize him?!
At the end, my messages were about reasonable thinking, not biases. I honestly don't like KDE look, but I do think that is an amazing piece of software, so I don't write crap about KDE. Also, I don't attack Nokia for its contributions to Qt or KDE (yes Nokia pay developers for KDE project), and I do think that a lot of technologies to Linux bring more choice than fewer. Why you don't attack the opensourceness of Qt that have also a comercial license? Why don't attack LLVM/CLang that "sneak" into a lot of opensource projects?