I'm sorry once again I have to disagree with all of your points:

1. It's not because ASP.Net 2.0 brought this new cool feature (which I'm happy to discover) that you use it right. Health monitoring is meant to monitor the site health. Using the heart beat to keep the site alive only keeps an healthy site active, while any failure resulting in the loss of an heart beat remains unhandle. This is not the kind of pacemaker I would like for myself. It's more something of a "keep active" feature than a real "keep alive". 
2. I have to say this is a wierd argument. the only purpose you would not pull at 1000 ft is the risk that you fail doing so at some point because of some human factor. We know we can reliably  assume that the dispose event will be triggered on every single recycling unless the process fails completely, which again none of us can do about internally (that is more of being hit by a plane during free fall). Then if I can assume my main will reliably throw at 1000ft, and I want to avoid canopy time, sure I would do it again. 
   But similarly I could argue that your method consists of jumping from 10000ft with a hundred parachutes, and consistently pulling then cutting away every 100ft. It does not bring anymore insurance than you won't be bouncing in the end, but my opinion is that the comparison sucks in the first place.
3. Logging event and keeping the site alive does not have to be the same. People might just be happy with decoupling the two features. I'm not saying that logging health monitoring events in db is bad, only that it's some kind of tough requirement if the purpose is to catch an event for some alternate use.
4. HttpModule is no more specific to DNN than HealthMonitoring, nor can anyone of us praise oneself for any of those two features. The whole of my module's code simply automates the task of installing the httpmodule and setting up the pinging, so that people don't have to do it themself.  

And finally, I don't think the dnn "anounce it!" forum is the perfect place to justify the fact that one's solution is not targeted at DNN by the assuming DNN is some kind of an obsolete technique, especially in someone else's anouncement. I think you should read the guidelines again, and accordingly that this thread is not the right place to continue such a discussion.

It already took me more time having that argument than coding and releasing the module in the first place. There's enough said in there so that people understand our different techniques, their pros and cons, + we both made the source code available.
If you feel like you need your answer then go ahead, but I won't be replying in here anymore.

Cheers

Just wanted to say that I for one appreciate the efforts made to clarify and debate the various points here. If the threads were completely seperate and presented without any debate, I'd be none the wiser... where now I've learned a lot from this... so, thank you.

Rob