On a more general note: it is easy to single out almost any particular type of operation for nit picking. One can easily compile a lengthy list of any type of operation gone bad: rides, tours, mustering, ag, corporate, pleasure, VIP, utility, military--you name it. Accidents (most should really be called "negligents") happen in every type and genre of operation.
Also, people are comfortable with what they know. Those who grew up flying nothing but turbines, and then went right into multi-engine IFR op's with very rigidly defined SOPs, are understandably uncomfortable if not outright horrified at someone jumping into an inexpensive single engine piston machine and performing some task without a large manual of rules and regulations, a high inertia rotor system, and a turbine. Similarly, those who started life in a piston single can't understand why anyone would see what they do as so risky. Familiarity may breed contempt, but un-familiarity can also breed another kind of contempt.
People on PPRuNe are apt to draw a line in the sky between what they find "acceptable" and "unacceptable" based on a combination of real facts, perceptions (which are not facts), experience, and their own risk tolerance. Most of the hot buttons are easy to identify because they do indeed involve additional risks: mustering, lightweight piston singles (mostly Robinson helicopters), rides, tours, night VFR, single engine IFR--I'm probably missing a few. And yet if you start mining accident databases you find that things are not as bad as you think.
At any rate, to paraphrase a famous novel, "Some helicopter operations are more equal than others." Where you draw that line is up to you. If you draw it in public, as I sometimes do on PPRuNe, one must be willing to suffer the slings and arrows of others who draw it differently. Obviously I enjoy posting here. I learn a lot by having such conversations, and while I may get frustrated from time to time, so far it has not extended to keyboard rage
Cheers and blue skies!