I agree. As I've mentioned before, both the well meaning "artistic intent" and the more pedestrian "3D-pop" arguments have attracted the attention and energy of many threads around here, when in fact I believe both arguments are merely distractions from the main issue.
And the main issue is that a BRD is a REPRODUCTION of an original work of art and should make every attempt to capture all the detail in the original print, whether it was intended to be there or not. If the original print is damaged (or otherwise compromised), any addition or subtraction should be made with the lightest possible touch, with the rule being that it should move it closer to the original print visually, as opposed to further away.
So with that said, many will be wondering what use a thread like this can be. I say it can be of great use!
For starters, any BRD that's loaded up with obvious post-processing artifacts (excessive DNR, EE, mpeg compression artificating, aliasing, etc.) obviously loses points.
Secondly, if we know something about the film stock and the quality of cameras/lighting used (as in big budget vs. independent, 35mm vs. handycam, soft-focus vs. filtered vs. not) we should have some idea of the level of detail that should be available in the original print by viewing other high quality transfers of similar films.
I fear that purists (such as myself) may have a tendency to be too forgiving of overly soft transfers that leave detail on the table, especially if those transfers don't have any obvious digital artifacting.