Whether these particular returns contained destructive turbulence or not
was not something I wanted to test.

Actually, it's not something you EVER want to test. I inadvertently
penetrated a Level 3 once, and would not willingly do so again. My
point is that if you have reliable static discharge data, it's not
something you're testing. You can't have strong convection with water
droplets without having static discharges. It's just not possible. If
the water is there and the static discharges are not, then there's no
convection and penetration is safe. It's just that simple.

My trip wasn't exactly critical either, and I could have deviated an
extra 30 miles and been outside the convective SIGMET. But what's the
point? Deviating around stratiform cloud with rain? Now without
'sferics, I would certainly have deviated. Or maybe not, if I had live
lightning data piped into my cockpit.

Additionally, my point in starting this thread was to question whether it
is really the FSS specialist's job to imply that I am being too
conservative when asking about the colorful radar returns?

I made no comment on that part of your post. I think you made your
point, it's been discussed, and I have nothing to add to it. No, of
course it's not appropriate - but then you get what you pay for.
Pesonally I prefer a self-briefing with DUATS.

Michael