It's true.
I'll agree with much of the content of this thread.
This whole evolution of techno argument very much reminds me of the "old vs. new" argument for pretty much ANYTHING in life.
Human beings are quite stubborn by nature and get comfortable with what they like. The usual argument for why old music (techno in this case) is much better new music is usually driven by the same people who believe something similar to this:
Old film camers are better than new digital cameras
Old analogue synthesizers are better than new VST plugins
Old 1990's hiphop was much better than modern day poppy hiphop
Old techno (via Juan Atkins to Danilo Vigorito) is better than new minimal (Ricardo Villalobose, etc)
Old 12" vinyls are better than new mp3 technology
Old turntables are better than CD-players
I think you get the point. We tend to always pay homage to anything that is "old" and we use it as a way to justify why its so much better than anything "new". For me, techno has come around full circle exactly as pointed out. As technology progresses, so does music. I'll be the first to admit that I complained when minimal peeped its head around the corner 4-5 years ago and I was deeply disheartened when I realized everyone from Chris Liebing to DJ Rush were playing minimal tracks (DJ RUSH FOR PHUKS SAKES!). But then I realized this was very much needed to keep the sound progressing.
While I still enjoy much of the late 1990's techno records more so than the stuff now, I won't go bashing the new stuff simply because what I listened to was considered "old". It's the new stuff that keeps pushing the boundaries of techno.
I'd hate to be the Derrick May of Techno (ie; make some incredible tracks 20 years ago, then NEVER make another record again for 2 decades and do nothing but complain about how "their sound" was stolen by Europe and that nothing impresses him outside of Detroit).
By the way, I hope I don't get flamed for that Derrick May comment. I respect him as a pioneer, but I think many of you guys know what I'm talking about.