No bad faith assumed. I simply noticed you left him out for whatever reason, and I wanted people to see his side as well.
As to the rest, you see that if you define something clearly it is no longer a problem. The word “objective” is never defined clearly by the above folks that I have found (can’t speak for Rand, though), and if it is, it’s something like “universal,” which then becomes acceptable but no longer has the same force. You clearly state that you are deriving an ought from an ought, and that I completely agree with. There is nothing to be resolved here, except that too many people like to use wordplay in an apparent attempt to add extra force to their arguments. That is what I rail against in those threads, and I do stand behind the wordplay charge, though I do not claim that it is deliberate. Hoppe does this, too.