Why are you so worried that an old 80-200mm design isn't as sharp as the latest model? There is also a huge difference in portability and functionality for the alternatives you suggest. Not everyone needs the same cookie cutter you prefer!

The expenses involved in GAS are a gradient, and different people have differing resource availability. A 70-200mm lens is a distinct step upward, both in cost and performance, from an 80-200mm. But high quality 400mm lenses are another step up that ladder.

Before the new 80-400mm AF-S was available it was very reasonable to consider using a 70-200mm with a 2X teleconverter rather than the older 80-400mm AF-D. Not so the 80-200mm with a 2X teleconverter. The point is that if the fantastic 70-200mm fits a budget but excludes almost anything else, it is a simple fact that the lowest cost next step that is functional is a teleconverter.

The 80-200mm f/2.8 is a wonderful lens for those who can't go the 70-200mm VRII. But why kid yourself about which is better.

As NPS program participant, I can have a NAS attack (Nikon variant) any time I want, with no lessening of my retirement $$$$. So yeah, when I need a lens I just get it. And I get to play with all the neat toys. And better is irrelevant in my case. No one is arguing which is better, silly boy, just saying that the 80-200 is certainly good enough, and for me, the 70-200 is not $1400 better. If I were shooting in adverse environmental conditions, no contest - I would opt for the 70-200 and its dust and moisture sealing. But a used 80-200 can be had for around $500, so it's hard to justify $2400 for what is about a 10% increase in performance, something that is hard to see anyway. Yeah, I've had my stuff printed from the D800 up to 40x60 - looks sharp to my eye, but more importantly, to my customers' eyes. :)

Since you like to have the last word - go right ahead! Enjoy your evening. . .