Hopefull, you did earn your way in under the current standards, and for that I congratulate you. You have obviously overcome a tremendous amount to run sub-4:00. I'm not being smug or BS'ing you when I say that this DOES inspire me, given your joint disease.
However, I think you are conflating two arguments.
I think it's great that you can break 4:00. I don't think anyone is minimizing an achievement like this. (I know I'm not.) That's not what this argument is about.
There are a lot of marathons out there that provide an opportunity to set a personal challenge (finish, run sub-4:00, run sub-X:XX).
Boston is supposed to be different. The reason you want to qualify is because the BAA has cultivated a sense of selectivity over the years. To run Boston means that you are (relatively) fast for your sub-group (age, gender).
If Boston entry becomes a test of how quickly you can sign up, then it loses this selectivity. Regardless of the actual cutoff time (3:10/3:40, 3:00/3:30, 2:50/3:20... going up by age), the qualifying factor must be *a race result*, not your availability to register 8 hours after it opens.
If there is another qualifying factor - as there was this year - then the selectivity that you worked so hard to be a part of goes away. Boston becomes like just about every other mass-participation marathon.
Wouldn't it be better to force a few people to work a little harder for a faster time, and to (unfortunately) exclude some people who are physically incapable of meeting that higher standard, then to eliminate the one thing that distinguishes the Boston Marathon?
(I say this with no hard feelings, as I registered today, and so did my training partners.)