To play devils advocate I think what a couple of the posters are getting at here is that:
1. The OP obviously had doubts about the certifying engineers sign off WRT these damaged blades.
2. The OP obviously did not seek clarification surrounding these doubts prior to flight of the affected aircraft. (Or the OP would not have been written).
3. The OP sought clarification on a safety of flight issue on an anonymous internet forum. (Nothing wrong with that as has been pointed out above. We all continue to learn).
4. The OP posted that they were now satisfied that the engineers signoff was correct and that there was no safety of flight issue, due to an anonymous answer on this forum which appears technically correct. (I am not doubting the veracity of the answering post containing the detail by the way).
Point 4 is the concerning part of this exercise, and I think this is the thrust of the answers raising the ire of some.
There is no doubt that there are less than perfect outfits out there, but when safety of flight is the issue clarification should be sought from the relevant sources (even these less than perfect operations work to the same technical data as other more seasoned setups). PPruNe possibly should not be included as such.
Rider: I am assuming that this aircraft was operated following the engineers signoff and not deemed AOG pending an adequate answer from the PPruNe engineering community verifying its serviceability.