Then why not try explaining the fundementals that would allow me to conclude that?

He did, by committing to f4 early you're creating a square (e4) where no pawns can attack, and potentially your opponent can bring a piece to later in the game, as well as weakening the castled king position.

Because it would take a book to do that...

bf5 is especially strong after 1.d4 d5 2.f4?! bf5.

simply put, 2.f4 is just = probably. Black basically is just down one tempo compared to the normal dutch. If i just want to play regular chess without much theory, the stonewall as white would probably pop up right next to the london system...

The stonewall attack (as white) had some popularity a few decades ago after an article in one of the chess magazines. I have a book somewhere in the house that recommends it to the casual player as the opening to learn if you just want to have some fun games with your neighbors at the local pub.

The advantages as white are it sets up some interesting king-side attacks, often involving a queen sacrifice after black castles. If played with minimal attention to your opponents moves, if black allows you to follow book for 6 - 10 moves, also makes it unlikely you will lose quickly.

The fact that it has been recommended to casual players, and has not been generally adopted by masters (as white) should tell you something.

It's a very good opening...

at your level.

Why do chess players feel the need to say things like this?

I would think that most of us as amateur players would be better off playing openings that give us exposure to a wide variety of positions. Openings like the Stonewall, Colle, London, seem not to offer much in the way of this

It's not the need, it's the truth.

A little decorum and a little less arrogance wouldn't go amiss.

With normal play from black (normal development etc) there is very little chance for a kingside attack in the reversed stonewall formation.

• Ba6 seems to slow for me. It will probably lead to an equal game but why play difficult when easy to good enough
• g7-g6 is in my opinion a case of the cure being worse than the disease. With your pawn still on g7 black can play f6 kicking the knight from e5. With a pawn on g6, f6 will be too dangerous as will weaken f6 and g6 to much. It also leaves you open to attacks with h4--> h5 and f4 -> f5. By playing g6 you are actually justifying  the move f4.
• Bf5 seems most sensible to me as you develop and directly hit the weakend white squares. White can hardly trade his white squared bischop as it would weaking the white squares even more. I also like Bg4 after logical white move Nf3 pinning the knight and exchanging it later. With suchs a locked up center white will not have much pleasure of his bischop pair.

Ow and how are you going to get a semi open h-file ? There is no way that black is going to open it after he castled short and unless he plays g6 it will be very hard to force him to open it for you.

Move order is of HUGE importance in the Stonewall. Often you can feint a Colle System by delaying f4. My favourite way of playing it:

Of course, Black does not have to completely ignore White on the Kingside, but a Bishop sac on h7 followed by a battery mate on the h-file is generally what White is aiming for. Nd2/Bd3 early stops all Ne4 possibilities (Qf3 also helps at times). Commiting yourself so early with 2. f4 seems terrible to me.