Fair enough. I suppose I stepped on your toes first.

I just want to make sure that we don't give the impression that the characteristics of one steel fork, used on a $600 road bike, compared to a carbon fork, used on $1700 commuter and cyclocross bikes, is a good basis for a general recommendation to choose carbon over steel for a cyclocross bike.

I do think your experiences and opinion of that particular fork make a good case for recommending that fork, regardless of the materials involved. It sounds like it was well designed to be suitable for the kind of use the OP described for his bike. It even has the mid-fork rack mounts he was concerned about.

Back to the OP and the question, "What is your preference of forks for a Waterford X-14 cyclocross ... steel or carbon? And why do you choose your preference of forks for a cyclocross bike?",

my answer comes from Waterford's site:

"Waterford's Steel Fork
No builder creates a steel fork with the ride of a Waterford fork. The combination of stiff crown and soft blade tips combines to offer what many riders characterize as the best ride you can buy!
* The Waterford cross investment cast fork crown minimizes weight while offering exceptionally responsive steering and excellent tire clearance. Our in-house fork-building capability lets us offer handling packages that fall outside the range of the available composite forks.
* Custom-engineered Reynolds 531 constant wall thickness fork blades as well as our special fork rake offer excellent shock damping.
* The 22-series fork receives Waterford stainless steel dropouts. Your dropout faces stay clean - no rust or peeling of the finish."

Why? Because I like steel and Waterford has among the best reputations for knowing how to use it for making bicycles.