Reacting to this post: (as many others have done, some more eloquently than others... I'm thinking of you, JimLotFP, oh ye of the sheer poetic Twattiness! Yeah, yeah, and Zak too. Very eloquent, but perhaps not the visceral impact of LotFP's prose stylings...)
The only thing in this post that I find disturbing (and this was really crystallized in the subsequent comments made by the author) is the supposition that anyone saying they like one style of gaming is simultaneously somehow denigrating any other style of play. No one (or at least no one that I have read, and I read a lot of old school blogs and have for over a year now) in the old school renaissance is going around putting down other styles of play. If anything, the OSR bloggers have been a wonderful example of people talking about what they like, creating material for what they like and giving examples of actual play of the style of gaming they like without all the negative flamewar bullshit that accompanies many other internet gaming communities.
I do find it a little bit sad that Faustusnotes has never had the opportunity or the pleasure to play in a good sandbox campaign. I suspect that he/she (hereafter I will just use the female pronoun as is my wont whenever gender is in question - this implies absolutely nothing and I do this habitually because I hate how imprecise English is when it comes to talking about a person in gender neutral terms) must have experienced at least elements of the type of gameplay old schoolers love while playing her "story" oriented games, because without the sort of player/DM interaction that old schoolers strive for any game feels flat no matter how wonderful the storyline that the DM came up with is. If the players are not impacting the story meaningfully, a roleplaying game becomes a DM storytelling session. Faustusnotes has had fun roleplaying - I posit that she must have had some impact on the story then.
The fact that she continues to cling to the idea that old school gamers are anti-story reveals that she understands absolutely nothing about the style of game that old schoolers in general like to run. There are stories galore, ranging from the simple treasure hunt to the most intricate court intrigues possible, with high drama across multiple realities; the thing that the old school movement is trying to capture is that these stories do not have to be pre-scripted. A DM can create a world that is dynamic and continues to run regardless of the PCs actions, and the way that they interact with this world creates the story. The type of story that plays out is wholly dependent on the group of players and the DM, and even the DM (especially the DM) can be surprised with how it turns out. In this manner, the DM gets to play the game as much as anyone else. The DM gets to experience the joy of discovery along with the players. It is a way of gaming that allows the entire group to take part in the creative process.
It is not the only way to game. It is not the one true way. It is a way that works, a way that is fun, and a way that NO published 4e adventures to date really leave room for without substantial DM work ripping the tracks off of the railroad. The very idea of a published arc of adventures that goes from scene to scene with the assumption that the PCs will co-conspire with the DM to do exactly what the module author intended is the antithesis of the old school movement. Writing such an arc of adventures would be a supreme waste of time in a sandbox - the PCs might decide they didn't even want to follow the plot hook into the adventure in the first place, and then all the effort of writing this grand unfolding plot would be for naught. Do some people like these story-arc module series? Sure. Do they have fun? Sure. There are still plenty of opportunities even within the strictures of a railroad to impact the story. The difference is that you only get a chance to impact the details of the story, not the overall plot itself.
The old school movement is not an effort to reclaim or cling to a juvenile and primitive way of gaming. It is a reaction to the lack of a specific kind of gaming in the modern iteration of D&D - not that 4e cannot support this style of gaming, because it can, but that the modules published so far for 4e do not support it. It is also an acknowledgement that if you like this style of gaming, the mechanical aspects of the system matter very little. Things like skill checks and feats are totally unnecessary if the player is every bit as much of a story teller as the DM. If anything, the style of play that proud grognards cling to could be described as much more story oriented than the "story-arc" style of adventure that Faustusnotes is a proponent of. I say this because each member of the group gets to tell the story in old school play, while only the DM controls the broad outlines of the story in a true story-arc (A.K.A. railroad).
The old school movement can serve as an example that players can be just as creative in coming up with plots and things to do as a DM can - and there are more players than DMs and it is far less work for the DM. So what's wrong with that? Maybe some 4e players will read one of these blogs and the next time their DM tries to shepherd them into her carefully constructed plotline, they will rebel and go do what they actually want to do in the world. And maybe the DM will realize that she doesn't have to undertake the entire burden of creating the story all by herself. Providing examples of alternative styles of play can never be a bad thing, and should never be denigrated as Faustusnotes has done. Many groups love railroads. Some may not like them as much as the alternatives, but they might never know it if there weren't people out there in blogland talking about the styles of game that they play and like.
And that's my two coppers worth.
(incidentally, I play in a Labyrinth Lord campaign and run a Mutant Future campaign and a 4e campaign. I run my 4e campaign in true old-school sandbox fashion and my players love it)