Generating online posts to this or any other membership forum is not a prerequisite for purchasing and using film. Nor does visiting here, finding it's not your cup of tea, and not ever returning guarantee that an individual will never again purchase and use any film.
It seems to me that it is far more damaging to film in general, and to the new Kodak Alaris in particular, to attempt to enforce blanket gag rules on all film users concerning just what film products, both current and discontinued, they are allowed to discuss. By doing so, and constantly referring to them from within that context, you guys are giving the impression that it's Alaris who is doing the blanket gagging. And that looks terrible for both you and Alaris.
What is the harm in allowing people to wax poetic regarding their past fondness for Super-XX, Panatomic-X, Plux-X, or any of the others including, of course, Kodachrome? By allowing, and maybe even encouraging, such public discussions, it keeps the Kodak brand name on everyone's lips and minds. And with a little luck might even build a few bridges from the fond memories of using Kodak products in the past, to the potential of continuing to value, purchase, and use Kodak brand products in the future.
Wouldn't all of you EK/Alaris supporters rather have the market (whatever its size these days) debating the merits of anything Kodak, rather than doing the same for Fujifilm? Or Ilford? Or Adox? Or Ferrania? If not, you should. It's free publicity for gawd's sake! The company on everyone's mind is the company that gets remembered at purchase time.
Did it ever occur to you guys that by labeling photographers who want to talk about Kodak's past products as "sick" it only hurts the Kodak brand in the long run? Word of mouth, especially in the Internet age, is more valuable than gold. And marketing a brand name that "sick" consumers are forbidden to mention in public is tantamount to selling lead.