Progression by the Classes

Not necessarily 8 different healers. I'm not in a top end raiding guild so yes, we take what healers we can. But there are some mobs that require 2 healers in each group, most the newer ones that we are trying to take down now. As for tanks we have 3, Pally, Guardian and Monk. When we don't need all 3 I'm on my Mystic and the Monk is on his Channeler (if we need a touch more healing) or becomes our second Brigand.
Do we have the choice in making a perfect raiding force? No..but some classes are very much less desired then others. And that's the way it's been since...... Launch.

Umm confused by this part. They ARE the top end raiding guilds because of their players and the classes they organize for the raid force. DPS matters, Parses matter, Utility matters, your bizarre raid setup might kill the first 2 mobs in the easiest raid zones, but that's about it.

If you want to know which classes are most likely to get a raid invite...then look at your own charts. Those needed the most tend to be the ones not played well by many so are in higher demand. Bards and Enchanters are nearly always on a "Looking for" list. Others that you will see often are Brigands and Chain healers. What you almost never see is a good to top end raiding guild Looking For a Bruiser, Beastlord, Channeler, Zerker or an SK.
Raids are about maximums. Period. No room for mercy slots for the classes who are not desirable, sorry. That's the way it's been since the beginning of raiding. To get to maximums you only use the classes and players that get you there. Nothing personal against those classes not selected, I didn't code the game to make them that way. I just want to succeed and if a bunch of classes get left behind to do that, then so be it. You want to raid? The pick a class the raiding community wants or needs instead of standing on the sidelines going "let me play". Raiding isn't elementary school recess where everyone gets to play Red Rover.

<3 for not including Swashbucklers in the list of undesirables

That's my point.

Vunder was implying that the framework that the elite raiding guilds used was just a "our way or the highway" "elitist mindset". I was challenging him to put his money where his mouth is. If he can demonstrate that an unconventional group can succeed (or better, excel), then he will successfully prove that he has a point.

I appreciate unconventional groups and unconventional strategies. I recall a WoW raid that was entirely staffed by paladins (mostly Ret spec, with a few Prot spec to tank ... and no healing spec). CoH had numerous supergroups formed around the concept that you could build a team of 8 defenders (often 8 with the same primary powerset) and be more successful than a balanced team. I liked the EQ1 AoE groups that were cleric, puller, enchanter x2, wizard x2. Or the very different AoE group that was cleric, shaman, paladin, bard x3.

But these highly successful unconventional groups are based off of very sound plans or strategies. But Vunder just came in and criticized people for following the most popular raid setup. His criticism is only valid if he can suggest an alternative that performs as well or better.

I offered Vunder an alternative raid structure (as a challenge) that has some plausibility behind it. It contains all of the ATs in equal measure. It contains the less popular classes, which should be equally capable if the "elitist" mentality has no basis in reality.

And I expect that my alternative raid structure will perform far worse than the popular raid structure, because it ignores several real issues that drive the popular raid structure.