Choppersquad, I took several attempts to complete reading your article as I found it dull and whiny - it reads to me as though you have a complex about not making it as a military pilot, or maybe you just lack the confidence to confront the ex-mils that seem to irk you. Either way, putting the cat amongst the pigeons with your article is a cheap shot and you deserve all the criticism you have received.
What Limits addressed the only real base line when comparing pilots. Outside of accident statistics, I would be interested to hear what defines a good pilot. Only then will it be possible to establish "better quality pilots" and "poorer quality pilots".
I think we tend to rate pilots (subconsciously) based on their personal characteristics (like confidence and decision making ability) added to their flying skills and their experience level. And only when they score high on all three, do they make it to the "good pilot" status.
I am ex-mil, before you ask. I'm also a fairly experienced pilot both here in the US and the rest of the world, and I can assure you that there are good and not so good on both sides of the fence. However, the confidence levels and the war stories from the ex-mils are much more a reflection of the personality that took them through the military route in the first place. Not a reflection of perceived superiority.
You are not doing your case any good by whining. I would also recommend that the next time you decide to compare the dangers facing mil pilots and civilian flight instructors, that you use something more plausible than the civvy teaching in an R22.
Tam