The big issue when it comes to the 40K fandom 'hating' various people/things, is that they are confusing subjectively bad with objectively bad. I saw a thread over on Warseer talking about how Draigo was poor storytelling. I certainly saw no probs with it and I don't see how it is an objectively poor story; it seems to be the classic example of 'I think it's bad, therefore it's definitively bad', rather than 'I don't particularly like this, it just doesn't float my boat although I know others will enjoy it- fair play'. It's a strange idea that if something, or someone, doesn't agree with their vision of 40K, then it/they are wrong on all levels and should be reviled by all.
The way I see it is that a terrible literalism has afflicted the way people look at the fluff. This attitude sees people only going by the words on the page, not allowing their imagination to think around the action/attitudes/atmosphere and how it would link to all we already know. Fluff should never be a straightjacket for our imagination, only ever a springboard.