Funny, once things are written online they are there - even if they are 8 years old. It's a bit like words blurted out that can never be unsaid.
People are very sensitive when it comes to language. After all, our language is part of our persona, our personal identity. I find it strange that people can criticize Esperanto but I haven't read anyone here criticizing English, which in my view isn't a very pleasant sounding language (with the exception of the Jamacan dialect). And I stand to my statement that at least parts of English have been artificially contrived by prescriptive grammarians, e.g. the hang up with the "split infinitives" and "dangling prepositions".
And yes, I am quite aware of the fact that Dr. Zamenhof purposely crafted the original version but then he did a remarkable thing: he stepped back and let the language community take over. I find that awesome. And the language community has reacted just as the speakers of all living languages - some things become standard and others don't. For a linguist, it must be interesting to see this happen. It is alot like Nicaraguan signing - watching a young language evolve.
Many neologisms in national languages are crafted (Ipod, walkman, Kleenex, Xerox, etc.) and nobody finds these words artificial (instead we say that they were "coined").
My partner and I prefer to speak Esperanto together even though I speak Portuguese and he speaks American English (neither of us has a fondness for English - though we both wrote our dissertations in it) because it is a special bond between us. And we experience that special bonding when we speak with others around the world in Esperanto, for, with the exception of the some thousand "denaskaj Esperantistoj" (native speakers), all of us have stepped half way to meet each other. None of us are in need of taking on another's culture in order to meet each other, as one must do when using a national language.
So we meet on a common ground, both sides having made an effort to approach the other.
As for the bound and unbound morphemes, all prefixes and sufixes in Esperanto theoretically may be used as root words. The fact that grammatical morphemes are added gives one the freedom of sentence structure.
So you get things like "la onta parado" (the future parade). But one is not bound by the etomology of the word as one is in English. In English (all varieties) there are pretty tight rules as to the use of Greco-Latinate morphemes and Anglo-Saxon morphemes. Thus, "*dogology" as the study of dogs is impossible. And consider the words inconvenient, ignoble, immature, counterclockwise, uncover, disappear, maladroit... I suppose one can find that fascinating and beautiful if one does not have to learn those forms as a second language. I have taught many years of ESOL and I have seen the frustration of students struggling to figure out why one cannot say malconvenient and why the opposite of uncanny is not simply canny. There might be something glorious about all that though it surpasses my understanding.
I am struggling with the same phenomenon in my studies of Chinese. My assistant sort of grins (he is from China) when I construct sentences using the same pattern, only that particular form is not correct. Recently, I said that I had been very ill - I said: Wo bing jile. Well, one may not use "jile" with bing (ill) to mean very, though Haojile (very well) is correct. Again, I suppose that that is very beautiful but it isn't making my command of Chinese move rapidly forward.