Murray's taking a little too much flak for being willing to share his hard work. He found something that works for him, and shared the results. It doesn't follow that something else might not work just as well. So what.
Print color is important; and developers, fixers, stop baths...can have a significant effect on this, especially if toning is done.
Ray apparently thinks that technical excellence, and the work required to get it, is unimportant, or at the least that it shouldn't be discussed without delving into the murky waters of what counts as good art. Bull. There are plenty of venues for that, including various threads here on APUG. My experience is that these aren't very enlightening.
Ray, if you don't like technical discussions, don't participate in them. Start a thread called "Ray's Profound and Illuminating Thoughts on the Nature of Art". I'm sure that it'll be riveting reading. Butting in and blasting away is not only rude it's a waste of time.
Let's reverse this. Say you start the thread suggested above, and you write a well thought out essay that clearly took a lot of time to come to, but you don't mention anything about technique. Suppose then that someone, much like you, comes in and says something like: "Sheesh! All you people do it talk about the nature of art! What a waste! You haven't even considered the technical requirement of an excellent image! Think about, say, cello players. Do they spend more time gazing into their navel ruminating about what makes excellent music, or do they spend most of their time becoming technically proficient? The latter, of course. You losers clearly don't have the chops to make excellent images, and so all of your pontification regarding the nature of art is a waste of time!"
The correct answer is that both artistic vision and technical ability are important, and one should be able to discuss one without having to also write a treatise on the other.