The problem people are having this thread is that this issue is wholly and unavoidably based on subjectivity. When it comes to overclocking, what one may consider extreme and unnecessary another may consider about as extreme as a tea party with their 4 year old niece.
Everyone has limits that they’re prepared to go to in order to overclock. For some it still remains the area of the hardcore enthusiast. Others see it has a means by which they can extract free performance from their machines to benefit the games they play, or tasks they perform on their systems. For some however, and I would class myself in this category, overclocking is a hobby in its own right.
My cooling costs more than any of the hardware I’ve used it on. I don’t game (not any more anyway), encode, edit video, fold etc. etc. All the power I need from a computer I have in my laptop, yet I still choose to buy high-end hardware and cooling, spending God knows how long clocking, benching and tweaking simply for the fun of overclocking. Now, I’m sure all but an extremely small minority here would regard that as a waste of time and money.
The point I’m trying to make here is two fold. Firstly, despite my love for overclocking it doesn’t bother me in the slightest that people choose not to overclock. Secondly, people can call the things I do pointless, but it's not going to change my outlook on it - just as people who choose not to overclock, in many cases, simply just don't want to. I agree, that there are quite a number of fallacies that need to be broken down – noise, heat, damage to components etc. and I hope this thread is able to take care of that in some way. However, should we berate people for not overclocking? Of course not, personally I’ve got more important things to do – like benching.