Lol, so when someone calls out your gatekeeper crap, you think they must be upset or frustrated? Nope. I’m just not a fan of letting bullshit stand unchallenged.
No, I don’t have one of the f/11 supertele lenses. I do have the RF 100-400, which has been similarly bashed as ‘unusably slow’ but punches well above its weight optically. It’s excellent for travel. For birds, I typically shoot at 840mm f/5.6 (600/4 II + 1.4xIII). I sometimes stop down to f/8 or f/11 for sufficient DoF with larger, closer subjects. Oh, wait…840mm f/11. I guess I don’t know anything about photography, because according to you that’s ‘unusable’.
There are plenty of examples of great images by excellent photographers here using the RF 800/11 or the RF 200-800 that is only 2/3-stop slower at the long end. To state that such lenses are bought by people being fooled by Canon is asinine at best. A good photographer understands the limits and use cases for a piece of gear.
Sometimes that limit is budget (I’m fortunate to not have significant limits, there). Other times, it’s weight. I know a couple of retirees, one of whom was a pro photographer, that used to shoot with Canon or Nikon 600/4 lenses on a DSLR, then switched to Fuji for the lighter system when carrying a 600/4 became impossible. They’ve now switched back to Canon specifically for the RF 800/11 and 200-800 along with a 6-series MILC. The better high ISO performance compared to their old FF DSLRs and the crop Fuji sensors goes a long way to make up for the loss of light, but they needed to lose the light anyway for lenses they could carry.
If you can’t use a lens like the 800/11 or 200-800 to take great pictures, the problem isn’t the gear.
