> I'm guessing based on the comments to my posts that some people are upset due to K&R being their first introduction to C (or their first introduction to technical writing) which leads to emotional responses that miss the point.

That's a shamelessly self-serving assumption.

When confronted with a claim/argument that is not favorable to your position, you have (at least) two options: one involves employing humility and intellectual honesty in an earnest attempt to resolve the conflict, and another involves inventing a convenient narrative in order to avoid the conflict. An example of the latter would be a stand-up comic who consistently bombs on stage and chooses to cope with it by telling themselves that the audiences are just too sensitive for the comic's edgy-but-otherwise-brilliant material. An example of the former would be for the comic to at least entertain the idea that their sets always bomb because the jokes are shit. Your response (which amounts to "u just mad") indicates that you seem to have taken this approach.

You have made a fact claim. You said that K&R "doesn't even attempt" to cover undefined behavior. That claim has been disputed. The next step for you to do is not to change the subject by questioning the motives and emotional maturity of those who have disputed the claim, but rather to substantiate it.

(For the sake of completeness: K&R was neither my first introduction to C nor my first introduction to technical writing—not that it matters.)