I didn't get the impression that Joe wanted instructions about how to achieve soft focus so much as other people's reactions to sharp focus as the only way to go.
I certainly see plenty of that---sharp focus as an end in itself---at forums like DPReview. There are several possible explanations for why soft focus has fallen out of favor with the forum crowd. One is simply that fashions influence which end of various continuums are more popular at any given moment. I've seen the same sort of thing with color saturation, for example. Some groups tend to criticize any hint of oversaturation, while others delight in it.
Another reason may be the number of people who are in photography for the love of the gear. Sharpness is a dimension affected by increasingly expensive lenses, so it becomes synonymous in some circles with image quality. I think some "gear heads," if I may be permitted to call them that affectionately, wouldn't know what to do with a soft focus portrait, or forest-scape. I think they'd be inclined to call it a mistake.
Post script: I attended a local camera club for the first time recently. Half their meetings are spent in competitions with judges from other clubs. I was surprised to find how much emphasis was being put on the need to have clouds in the sky of any landscape. For myself, it really depends on the composition---as well as the opportunity---to say whether "clouds are missing." The importance of clouds to this group struck me as a local thing that had been incorporated into their "minimum standards" for landscapes. Personally, I'm not big on art in competition, but it's interesting to hear what qualities people value in photography from place to place.