Easy there trigger. Nobody is arguing with you. Take a prozac and slow down. I completely agree that a properly designed stud is stronger than a bolt. Chrysler modified/updated/changed all kinds of things on these motors over the years. Some to save $$$ during production, others to improve durability/warranty/NVH issues. The cam stud was done for durability reasons. If you've ever seen a picture of an original stud next to the much improved bolts, you'd understand. Those original studs were a joke next to the bolts. Now, can I quote the engineer or tech bulletin proving that, no. All my engines have had bolts, I've never lifted a cam in 27+ years of having these motors, and the N/A motor that just came out of my Scamp had MP valve springs, cam, & PT lifters, and was regularly spun to 7K.
As far as arguing about non-sense, that's all in your opinion. Trust me, I've belonged to other forums that have argued way more meaningless stuff than this one. And have since left a couple for that reason.
Yes, technology advances, things change. I have a copy of the MP Speed secrets book at home I like to read. Better than 1/2(probably a lot more) of the material in it isn't valid anymore because of advances and progress. It's more of a historical curiosity anymore than a bible on how to modify your 2.2/2.5. Doesn't mean it didn't work back in the day with what they had available.
As with any forum, you have to cautiously read what is written, and go with what you think is best. Nobody is perfect, and there is no one person that has all the right answers. Trust me, I read all kinds of threads, and talked to many folks before tackling my turbo conversion on my Scamp. In the end, I trusted the guys I know are going fast and not breaking stuff to give me the answers I needed. But even then, I did my own thing in a few areas. It works, and I now have one bad-fast L-body.
I try to help where possible, but I know I'm not infallable. If I know I make a mistake, I own up to it, and try and post a correction.