I don't think there are too many people arguing whether or not the OP should have used a more portable format... he clearly should of, but he didn't. The argument most of the people are making is that you really shouldn't be complaining about not being able to read a file format which you can freely read in the first place. Everyone is arguing for "pdf," but as far as I know Windows doesn't come packaged with a PDF viewer... you'd have to at least download Acrobat reader or a third party alternative. That said, why couldn't someone with a minimal version of Windows make the argument that they don't want to go through the trouble of installing a PDF viewer?
I recognize that one format is closed source and one format is open-source... but the fact is that the content of the document uploaded by the OP could have been read freely on any operating system as long as the end-user wished to install the dependent software. I say this having already viewed the document in OpenOffice in Linux. The case is no different for PDF.
The point is, there really isn't a reason the OP should have to change what is comfortable for him simply because some users don't want to be bothered opening the document. I mean... geez, imagine if everyone that viewed this and didn't respond for another valid reason complained about it.
"Why did you make it an attachment? I don't want to be bothered downloading an attachment."
"Why did you make this thread? I don't want to be bothered reading..."