Nice compilation! It seems there are still some level headed people out there, but is it enough to change anything?
In the end, it is -I think- going to (have to) be the miners who decide this. They have many billions (I assume) dollars of mining hardware running 24/7 - specialized hardware that is worthless the moment bitcoin fails. So they have a very big incentive to solve this issue. And they can be empowered to solve this issue, if more companies like Coinbase support them, or at the very least state (this could be privately to the miners) that they will support the chain that has the most hash power even if it is BIP101. They cannot afford to be at the losing side of the chain, and they cannot afford to let this issue linger on forever. They may not like it, but the miners have the power here. They may want to delegate that responsibility, but they might want to rethink that if their billion dollar investments go up in smoke.
Sure, everyone loves consensus. "Let's all agree". But scientific consensus is a mirage, it cannot and it will not ever exist. Stefan Molyneux has a nice video - ignore the Sanders setting and just listen to the general argument.
http://youtu.be/NGYcUWBtaoU
Scientific consensus is really the opposite of science. Science does not run on consensus, science runs on objective measurements, reason and evidence, hypothesis validated by independent agencies, reproducability, all that kind of good stuff.
You may think that you are winning, and I guess to the herd that you are, but the long view of history is that the herd casts almost no shadow and intellectuals with reason and evidence on their side end up defining the future, which will not be what you imagine in your fantasies.