Good decks have disruption of some sort, either mainboard or in the sideboard. Thats magic. Disruptive elements is one of the major differences between it and other card games. As well as attrition. There is no way to get around it. And I feel any competitive game worth its salt contains disruptive elements. Its not a do what you want, however you want and no you cant stop me gaming world. So, there is no point in complaining. Face it, if the game was simply a race without disruption, it would be terrible. Thats for childish people who feel like the world owes them something. Take your I want it now attitude whomever they are and change it, or get demolished.
I'm not sure if you were replying to my post above, but if you were, you're making assumptions that are not there.
I happen to agree that decks do need disruption, and it's certainly part of the game. However, pure control decks can be irritating because, when you win, it's 1/4 luck (mana draws, etc), and 3/4 either having a deck that is able to overrun all the counterspells and disruption, or managing to outmaneuver your opponent. The latter being up to player skill, certainly, and the former simply highlights the inherent imbalances between certain deck types. Subjectively, even a win in said situation is not as fun, as you generally are abandoning any specially designed mechanics of your deck and just managing to get SOMETHING out on the board. Your opinion differs, but is no more valid. It has to do with personalities and preferences, and unfortunately, the differing viewpoints will likely have to agree to disagree as it were.
As for using what "I" want when "I" want it - well, that's part of the game toO. Obviously there will be tradeoffs and one can choose to play what one likes but will have to understand that sometimes it will get beaten. However, there is a difference between losing sometimes and all the time. It's an unfortunate side-effect of competitive play that only the "best" cards are considered useful. Some of us don't want a game where there is no disruption/interaction, but would rather be able to use the cards we find interesting. That doesn't make us scrubs or Noobs or anything but, well, casual players really. Where this becomes a problem is trying to play at FNM or similar event a store where others are trying to hone their competitive decks. As I said, building a netdeck and learning to use it isn't any harder for me than anyone else, just not as interesting.
Sorry if this was rambling, I'm on break at work and my attention was skewed. Basically, don't make the assumption that just because not everyone likes to play in the same manner you do, does not make them wrong, nor whiny and self-entitled (not more than anyone else with an opinion).
First, boring is subjective, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. If you knowingly admit that cards you select by your own choice are cards you think are suboptimal, then why complain? That makes no sense.
This is really a separate issue from playing vs. control, but it absolutely does make sense. As you said, boring is subjective. Magic is a CCG, and part of the allure of the cards is the design/theme of the cards (the art, creature/type of card, etc). For some, perhaps many, the ability to use the cards they find attractive is important to their "fun". These players are more likely the "Timmy" type players.
That being said, such players don't want to ALWAYS lose. Unfortunately, the way the game is played, especially at higher levels, lends itself to they type of play that justifies only winning, and thus, only a limited selection of cards is viable. As Frostraven mentioned, learning to build "better" decks frequently consists of advice consisting of, "throw away your deck and make this deck consisting of only XZY competitive cards."
This is why, as a player recently returning to the game after an (approximately) 17 year hiatus, I am much more likely to stick to strictly casual and limited play. That way I can play the way I want (within reason), and yet still not have a 0% win rate. I can netdeck as well as the next person, and if I chose, acquire playsets of all the best cards, but what's the point? Of course, your opinion may differ, and that's perfectly fine.
As for playing against control, it certainly can be frustrating, mainly because certain decks are much better equipped to deal with control decks. For example, a low-cost creature deck (aggro is the correct term?) has a much greater chance of beating out a control deck than a deck that specializes in fewer, larger creatures and/or spells, even if both decks are well-designed in their own rights. There is no way around it, and it will aggravate some people. No way around that either, others will have to adapt to that fact as well.
That being said, I find that in my older age (compared to when I played magic as a teenager), I find it easier to deal with control decks, and have more willingness to put a few contingency cards in place, and am more willing to play patiently, waiting for an opportunity to take back control of the game. Of course, there are still situations with control decks where, unless your deck is made in just the right way, you really have no chance. (although this could be said for numerous other types of deck as well)