I don't disagree with you, but I don't think it's for me to decide who should be allowed to talk. I don't personally care for those questions, so I don't answer them. Problem solved, in my book. It takes all kinds of people to have a functional community- the fact that you or I don't see the value in those discussions doesn't mean they don't have value to others. Who am I to stop those people from having a dialogue when it isn't hurting anyone? Is it irritating when someone doesn't care enough about a response to have a dialogue with you, sure. I agree with you there as well, but there's no site rule saying you have to engage in debate with everyone who talks to you, either. I don't want to "police" the site. People are free to come and go and talk as they please. The only time I plan to step in is when that somehow infringes upon a person, law, or protected class.
I don't fault anyone for being irritated, but if the shoe was on the other foot, where a handful of members deemed your contributions inadequate or useless, I really have a hard time believing you'd be ok with me censoring you to appease them. That's just not cool. I won't make that decision. It's not up to me to decide what has value, nor should it be up to anyone else.