I seem to be struggling to say anything on this topic without offending someone, but apparently I've outdone myself here. I apologise, but hopefully can explain that I did not meant to cause offence.
The bikeshed thing is an empirical observation of the social side of open source software, and if you read the link you'll see that, despite the informal tone of the piece, it is actually a positive encouragement for people to push forward and make changes despite the fact that small (though not trivial!) changes can often create the greatest amount of discussion.
The nipple remark was, I thought, a common yet colourful way to concisely sum up why it is unwise to follow the standard application of 'intuitive', meaning inborn, instinctive knowledge, to highly complex software situations. It is better suited to describing natural phenomenon such as breast-feeding, where the young child truly responds intuitively without having to learn from experience or be taught what to do. When people use the term to describe computer interfaces they do not generally intend to suggest that a child raised by wolves would have no problem understanding it, and if two different people claim that two competing options are both more 'intuitive' then there isn't really any constructive way to proceed unless surveys or research is conducted. That, of course, is an admission that the 'intuitiveness' lies in the relationship between an individual and the software, not in the software itself.
With that warning on 'intuitive' and 'learnable vs. usable', and the general warning that seemingly small changes can often lead to unexpectedly heated debate, I had hoped to avoid arguments and offence, as people argue about what is more 'usable' or 'intuitive' without a shared reference or context for these terms. Obviously that intention has somewhat backfired.
Please (anyone) feel free to rephrase the entries to better reflect this or delete them if they are unsalvagable.