Well, I was under no illusion that it was anything other than a deprecating or disparaging comment.The expansion of the acronym and the surface definition is not really as revealing as is the underlying definition and intent. The acronym is used to caste distain upon those, who in the eyes of the user, "don't get it" and can't rise up to the user's perceived level of enlightenment.
Rather than interacting on an intellectual level the user labels the target and avoids engaging in something they consider to be beneath them. This allows the user to maintain their perceived level of enlightenment without actually having to test or improve said level. Its frequent use makes one prone to intellectual and social blindness to some degree.
I think it's fairly obvious why he chose not to engage in further discussion about his proposed "solution".
Back on topic. The OP states that the design assumes staring from stationary thus ignoring the possibility of windmilling in either direction.
What we don't know is either the direction of windmilling or the possible speed. If it's the forward direction (wrt the desired operation) , then it isn't likely to be problem.
If it's the reverse, I'm inclined to think it might not be very fast. What is causing it to run in reverse? How is the air movement generated? Vehicles or maybe external prevailing winds?
In either case, I think it's not altogether likely that it will be presented to the fan at anything like the air flow it is designed to produce. On that basis, reverse rotation would not likely be very fast.
The worst aspect is probably a longer run up period. As I said before, setting the overcurrent protection might be a challenge. In terms of time rather than magnitude.