I won't tackle your other points because they've already been addressed well.

Inclusion of Flash was deemed necessary to improve the out-of-box experience. And even if it wasn't included inherently, users expect Flash to be available for web access. You should have been here for the outcry when tablet owners had to deal with an older version-- the protest was loud and long. Flash is abused but it isn't solely used for bells and whistles, either. There are many "legitimate" implemntations as well, such as jaiku post applets. Could such components have been created via an alternate technology. Of course! But the reality is that Flash has become an ubiquitous, expected aspect of the Web experience and it had to be supported-- especially for YouTube. I'd rather SVG on steriods replace Flash entirely but that isn't going to happen.

If I understand correctly, for Nokia to even provide the possibility of Flash running (ie, as a separately-installable plug-in) there are still royalty issues to face (someone please correct me if I am wrong). Thus NDAs, proprietary interfaces, etc.

Finally, Flash was only used as an example, so no need to hyperfocus on it. If you've been reading the numerous, cogent rebuttals to your complaints, by now you should realize there were sound business reasons for certain closed aspects of the tablet and once again the important thing to note is the continual replacement of such elements where practical and possible. The tablets are evolving.

You seem to be approaching this commercial, for-profit enterprise with a purist's perfectionism, expecting Nokia to make the product 100% open a la OpenMoko. But Nokia isn't OpenMoko, so certain comparisons are flawed in sentiment. If you want purity, then by all means avoid the Nokia tablets and go with something that suits your ideals. The tablets wil get as close as they realistically can, but never 100% I'm afraid.