The point of my statements was not to Defend Rome, they have their Problems, Especially the Filioque...but the Point that I was making is that the problems with the Miaphysite Theology are no less significant, and probably more so for the Reason that it is an Oecumenical as opposed to a Local Synod that is in dispute. The arguments made against Rome are equally applicable against the Miaphysites (Chalcedon clearly laid out our Dogma on the issue of the two Nature of Christ: 'Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God must be confessed to be in (+Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦++ not +Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦+Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦) two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably united, and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and substance...But such as dare either to put together another faith, or to bring forward tor to teach or to deliver a different Creed...let them be anathematized.'), I dont see how Rome can be so strongly condemned, while the Non-Chalcedonians are basically given a free pass, I'm just trying to get some Consistancy. And while it's true that the Miaphysites have some cultural customs in common with us, the same goes for Rome, though this was more apparent before Vatican II (and outside the US)...but the primary issue here is Still Theological, cultural differences are something that is a consideration after Theological issues are solved.
Next, what is 'informal communion'? Last I checked we had a very formal and clear means to demonstrate whether or not we are in Communion with someone, they are called the Dyptics, if we're in Communion with your church we'll include your Patriarch's name, if we're not in Communin with your church, we'll omit it. We have often accepted sacraments from bodies that we see ourselves reflected in to varying degrees, which is why we Accept Latin Baptisms, and Usually Ordinations, as well as those of the Miaphysites...but this is hardly a sign of Communion, it just says that we see Enough of Ourselves reflected in them so that the Sacrament that was Initially done in Form and with proper intention can be realized in the fullness of its Essence with entry into the Orthodox Church. But ultimately, As there is but One Christ, there is only One Eucharist, thus there is only One Communion, and only One Church...One Lung, One Family...One Church. I have nothing against the Oecumenical Movement, and I have nothing against Dialogue, for I believe it is helpful, but I do object to the Suggestion that the Body of Christ is some how divided, for this is not the Case, this cannot be the case: we are One, and those who are not in Communion with us are not Part of the Body of Christ; thus there are not Two Families of Orthodox, there is only One, to say otherwise is to try and tear asunder the Body of our Lord (something more horrendus than anything you'll see on Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ).
Finally, I'm not saying that everyone who is a Convert has a hatred of the tradition from which they came, but from my experiance, and from Statistics I've seen, I think it's a fair sociological analysis. Secondly, I have stated that this Hatred may not be specifically seen in a hatred of the past tradition itself, but rather with the people associated with it, or at least the leaders in the institution. Or Perhaps what's being observed is just the effect of American Culture on the Church, making people tend towards Radical Ends of the Political Spectrum, Individualism, and Arrogance...interesting how Greece, the Orthodox Country with the Most Western Influence, has had the most trouble with Schismatics (excepting western Europe and North America, of course).