Which is just another way of saying you can't rebuke what I said because you know it's true, but you can't stand that reality so you just tried to get around in a rather half-assed attempt.
Independently from any discussed topic, criticizing is a skill like any other. There are people who are good at it, there are people who are bad at it. There are times it's useful, there are times it's useless. There are times it's accurate, there are times it's completely redundant. So why would you be allowed to say that's something can be critiqued, but I'm not allowed to say that just because it can, it doesn't mean it's useful or correct?
Funny part here is that just by saying you stopped reading, you just proved my point and contradicted your own comment as you could consider my post as me giving criticism, which you then brushed off with that shallow reasoning of yours. Which should have been the only thing you shouldn't have done if you wanted to give any credibility to your own comments.
Now I then followed up with an example, you supposedly didn't read, to make that point clear, namely why Sanji didn't poison the cake, which was one of the primary things LC was talking about. Yeah Sanji had the opportunity to poison the cake, only if Oda would have let Sanji do that, he would have massacred his entire character and if Oda can do that for Sanji, he can do that for any character.
Sanji does not hurt woman. Sanji does not mess around with food. These are not some superficial gimmicks he employs, these are vices he lives by and he even explicitly stated and showed he would rather die than betraying them. If he would have discarded them purely for opportunistic reasons, he wouldn't be Sanji anymore. So yeah it's a point that can be critiqued, but that doesn't mean that criticism is accurate and it shows a clear lack of understanding a story and its characters, which is like a fundamental requirement if you want to give legitimate criticism.
TL;DR: you said that it's a point that can be critiqued. I then said that it's not because you can, it should and I consequently made that clear as why that is with a relevant example that was already used. And you? You then replied with well, 'meh' sums it up I guess.
Yeah you are not obliged to answer when someone quotes you, but doing it just to say you were incapable of reading more than one sentence and try to appear you somehow said something worthwhile, is really not a smart thing to do.
When they fought Don Krieg, Krieg was not a fodder. At that point in time he was the fiercest enemy they encountered. They were very well the underdog in their battle and Krieg very well had the power to kill them all. The difference? Krieg was actually much closer to achieving that goal than BM. BM has an impressive network and she doesn't make idle threats. Still till further notice her threats were just words spoken in the New World, while Krieg actually attempted to kill Zeff while he was trying to take over Zeff's ship. As far as we know Zeff's life was never in immediate danger during the WCI-arc, which was very well the case with Krieg.
Sanji refused to forsake his principles when it comes to food already at the beginning of the story, no matter how stupid it was, so thinking he's going to do that willy nilly at this point in time, is absurd and shows a clear lack of understanding of his character, the story and the contextual frame as a whole. Lets not forget BM is still a woman. Even when Robin's life was at stake he refused to fight Khalifa at Enies Lobbies and then you expect Sanji to betray two adamant principles he refused to budge on at the same time?
No Oda didn't miss any chance, he did what a good writer would do: he made sure his character is still his character and not a shallow tool that can be tossed around in all directions whenever it's convenient. That's why OP is so good, the characters you are creating though are flaccid and boring.
