I've been patiently wading through two threads worth of diatribe, and in all the muck and mire only post #56 seems to have been able to understand the intent of that column piece. If Bike Snob was a poster here he would be on a half dozen ignore lists (like yours truly) because the one thing the majority of you hate more than someone with a strong opinion, is someone that is correct. They never said a single one of you do not have the God given inalienable right to wad up as many $5K CF roadbikes as you can afford to (or not afford to), he merely pointed out, in merciless detail, the absurdity of wasting money like that. It's called 'rage baiting', and I will bet money that tongue was FIRMLY in cheek from the very first word of that piece to the last.
One clue that the writer was being less than serious is the Red Herring of the "Steel Frame" offered as the only viable material for bike construction. The real answer is Aluminum. Have you seen what can be done with Aluminum in the 21st Century?
Take a look. Only the fork is Carbon. I have to keep one eye on it at all times out and about because it looks like it cost 5x what it actually did, and in Portland that means it attracts thieves like NBA players attract, oops never mind, wrong forum. Steel is real mainly in the abstract. It's an o.k. thing to make bikes out of but it's not better than Aluminum. Bike Snob knows that. He totally gave the game away with the double down on Steel as the clear alternative over CF.
Yeah, I'm afraid youse guys have been rage baited into a right lather the lot of you. It's simply not possible that the Bike Snob intended that piece to be taken as instructional. He knows better. But, I'm just saying, if you do happen to have five large burning a hole, take $2K of it and buy the nicest non carbon bike from the previous years overstock that you can find. Tell your Old Lady what you did. Prove it with the sales receipt. If you are over 65 take appropriate precautions as normal when intimacy is expected.
For a good long time to come ...