In fact, I have no issues with metro for touch screen devices. I'm sure it will be fine on tablets etc. It just doesn't belong on a desktop. That, is the issue.
And the only reason that you think so is that it creates a position of neutrality (desktop vs. touch).
I take it you've never seen a mobile application OR app OR game that you wished you could run on your desktop (or vice-versa)?
I'm perfectly willing to admit that I have (and in both directions). The current OS biasing/niche-ificaiton does not (except with VERY limited exceptions) permit write-once/run anywhere for applications - not even for Linux distributions. (While some iOS games can run unchanged on OS X Lion or later, that is not true of the majority, and that is quite deliberate on the part of Apple.)
WinRT is the first deliberate attempt to de-bias applications and games, as the only bias inherent in WinRT is due to the API (Windows 7 doesn't support WinRT). Write to WinRT and both WindowsRT *and* Windows 8 can run your application or game. Write to Win32 and Windows 8 and Windows 7 can run your application or game. With WinRT, you can also write applications to Windows Phone (or even port Windows Phone applications to WinRT) with minimal changes. The utterly amazing thing with Windows 8 is, despite the neutrality in terms of API support, the existing crop of applications runs just fine. Windows 7 (in any form) has NOT been able to say that.
I get that this particular change is a biggie - in fact, I have called it the biggest change in Windows from a UI point of view since the launch of Windows 95's first wider beta (specifically, build 224 and Windows 95 beta 2). However, you don't necessarily have to run ANY WinRT applications - in fact, I don't. Every application, game, and utility I run on my Consumer Preview install (except for some WinRT games) is of the traditional sort - for the simple reason that I haven't found a single WinRT application or utility good enough to replace the traditional application or utility I use for that task.
Is the issue the StartScreen - or the lack of a Start menu (of the traditional sort)? The very reason I bring up the latter is that there ARE applications that create the semblance of a Start menu from the StartScreen (Stardock's Start8, for example) - however, apparently that's not enough to suit you.
Surprisingly, the very reason I run the Consumer Preview of Windows 8 as the sole OS on a daily basis is something that the detractors have dismissed. It's not the new UI. It's not even the new application types.
It's the backward-compatibility *and* performance - both of which exceed even Windows 7 + Service Pack 1.
All those "doesn't belong on a desktop" comments are saying is that you (as a user) are perfectly happy with the stratification of operating systems by UI type. Even more telling, you're perfectly willing to give up better performance in existing applications (and on existing hardware) to keep that. Basically, the anti Windows 8 UI arguments are looking a LOT like the arguments of governors of Southern states in favor of the continuation of separate-but-equal - made in 2012 (despite approximately half a century of hard data - in their own states - proving the argument they are trying to present as specious and meritless) - both subjective and silly. (Subjective in the sense that you are ignoring the hard data on backward compatibility of existing applications and hardware - much of which you admit to, but discount because it doesn't buttress your argument/position. Silly in the sense that you are perfectly willing to castigate the same behavior in others whose positions you oppose - then you engage in it yourself in opposition to THEIR position.)