Terry,
I like your post. For most observers it doesn't matter how the special effect was achieved - in-camera, through special handling under the enlarger, or by a software program. If someone wants to spoil an otherwise good image by using a slow shutter speed, distorting optical filter or heaven-forbid a Photoshop plugin, it's their business and it won't affect the rest of the world.
What I wanted to point out in my opening post, that the lines between all the old and new treatments are getting blurred, and we have now many options to choose from, including special finishes like textured paper, canvas or printing on metal. If you like IR or cross-processing look, a strong HDR effect or van Gogh painting filter, that's OK. If the final product looks interesting and appealing to you, you are free to hang it on your wall or maybe you can even sell it. And we all know that whatever looks appealing to one person, may look awful or boring to another.
It's really not that different from paintings. Some people like the detail work of Thomas Kincade and Robert Bateman, others prefer Warhol and Picasso, and some like abstract and graffitti. And for others yet, nothing beats a full-chest multi-colored tattoo.
So while the purists will keep insisting on the conventional high-resolution in-camera captures and accepted finishing methods, many buyers or interior designers will choose the artwork by looks, price, availability or the latest color trend.