Your post, more than anything simply argues semantics (what I'll be addressing here). As such, it would benefit your cause if you fully considered your own semantics to clearly communicate your point and lend credibility to your concerns. That is, of course, what I gather you're suggesting, make the interface more to the point and therefore more usable. So if you want us to agree with you, you'd also need to offer suggestions that take into consideration the information use of all users, otherwise it becomes clear that you serve only self-interests.
As an example, suggesting the removal of "Post to Front Page" is misleading method to communicate your point. You're really suggesting is a change in the perceived intent of its use. Supporting your case, using this function to post to a hypothetical front page, is incorrect use because people will be allowed to customize their front page. But this is only in support of your suggested change of the environment.
What you may have failed to see, is that "Post to the front Page" would be the default page view had someone not customized or had they customized their front page to view that (sub)section by default. So your suggestion is biased and unclearly thought out because it only takes into account your usage of the site, not everyone's, and is only offered as a solution to support your suggestions. Where the real use of this function would in fact, function the same way, even with your suggested change--so there is no need to change it, but not remove it. Possibily changing the title to "Post to Top of Section" would be a better semantically communicative change.
Taking into account everyone's use, or potential uses of a site and its contents is an essentially critical exercise of the information design process that you have overlooked. So your suggestions, although interesting and a starting point of discussion, are biased and inaccurate for an enduring and extensible design.