Another thing...Why did the elves not fight?

[Lord of Angmar]

But I do think that we must recognise, on a general level, that Elves did display the character flaw that Essex highlights.(The Saucepan Man)

I assume that by "on a general level" you mean that while it is a common trait among Elves, it cannot be ascribed to each and everyone of the Firstborn. I can think of many prominent Elves of the First Age who displayed this character flaw, (Thingol, many of the Sons of Feanor, Saeros, etc.), but I can think of an equal or greater number who displayed no such trait (Luthien, Felagund, Beleg and Gwindor, to name a few). And though I do agree that there was a good deal of patronage of the Edain by the Elves of Beleriand, I also think that Men being appointed as 'underlords' was in many cases as much a sign of respect and friendship as it was a means of patronization.

As well as their sin of pride, this doesn't give them an excuse to be a pretty nasty bunch of beings for a lenghty period of their history (ie kinslaying, etc).(Essex)

I agree with HerenIstarion that as far as races of Middle-earth go, the Elves are just as 'good' as any other. If I were to write an argument similar to the sentiments you have expressed above for each of the other major races, it would go something as follows:

-Dwarves: Lustful, greedy, proud and arrogant, hiding in their mountains hoarding their wealth, without even enough respect for the other inhabitants of Middle-earth to share their language.

-Men: Easily corruptible, prone to usurpation and treachery. From Ulfang to Ar-Pharazon, Men have countless times proven that they do not deserve to inherit the earth.

The only denizens of Middle-earth who are, as a race, guilty of no (recorded) 'sinful' wrongdoing are the Bombadilians (including Goldberry).