Indeed the EA Buddhadharma doesn't seem to appeal so much to the TB community. I can only speak from my experience, so it doesn't explain the general lack of interest, but community starts with the individual. I can only relate my experience to modern times and western world, obviously.
Maybe the fact that we share a lot of teachings with the Theravadins who preserved the words of Buddha makes it more easy for us to understand each other (respecting the due differences). I find much easier to have a common ground with a Theravada practitioner, that at the basic level shares similar ideas (again with the due differences in sunyata and so on) than with EA Buddhadharma. I find it quite easy to communicate with Theravadins. I know that in terms of doctrine there's a bigger gap between their school and Vajrayana, but we have a lot of common ground. I can't say the same when I talk with some Zen folks. Sometimes what they say doesn't even seem Buddhadharma. Not that such schools don't share similar sutras at some extent. They just don't seem to care. I'll clarify.
For instance, Astus, you are a very learned fellow and very easy to talk to. You have quite extensive doctrinal knowledge and if I talk about a particular teaching you'll easily know what I mean. Ven. Huifeng the same, or Anders. You guys know doctrine and we can talk. If we talk about the sutras, madhyamaka, yogachara, tantra in many instances, it goes fluidly. Now, the problem I find personally when talking with Zen folks or PL Buddhists is that most of what they say seems to come out of the blue. Moment to moment rebirth, karma not being literal, realms as mental states, being in the moment as if this was the only thing Buddha had taught... many haven't studied practically anything and take pride in such approach. It's as if after giving the step and entering Mahayana, then they gone wild. Of course I'm not talking about educated fellows, but the usual practitioner of Zen one finds in an internet forum or a Buddhist gathering of some sort. We know that there's much more to it in Zen tradition, but if its own practitioners seem to lack interest in studying, why should we? We know there's more to it, but if they themselves don't show interest in their doctrine, why should we? (TB buddhists usually are well read; of course I'm not talking about poorly educated tibetans that go to the lama for a blessing and then go to their fields, but of practitioners, tibetans and westerners). I'll confess something to you: when I meet some western Zen practitioners and listen to them, I pity them. So close (they met the Buddhadharma), yet so far (they don't understand it), saying all sorts of rubbish with that "Zen pose". I'm concerned with the evolution of Zen in the West... I don't know how's the Eastern situation. This doesn't mean we don't have our share of problems in TB, but that's a different story.
About the PL buddhists... I have a hard time accepting that the path can be reduced to the repetition of one text (or few) to gain rebirth in a Pure Land. Why not aiming a little higher and going for Enlightenment right now? Seems a bit defeatist and one doesn't even start to investigate this school. I'm sure there's much more to it (see my ignorance?) than the repetition of a text (or a few), but having in mind the aim of the practice- let's try to achieve Buddhahood in the next life, in this life there's no point so let's only wish for a favorable rebirth- it's a sort of turn of. There's so much to the Noble Path, why reducing its main practice to the repetition of a text? We suspect there's more to it, but...
So it's as I said. When I read you, Anders and so on, I see Dharma in your messages. But if we explore other Zen forums and listen to some PL fellows whose only advice seems to be reciting a text, it's depressing...
I don't want anyone to feel offended. I'm just being as candid as possible and explain my own experience. Usually my point is that the A, B or C school surely have more to it than what first meets the eye, because I've met X,W and Y practitioners and they know what they are talking about. The problem is the rest of the alphabet... and one doesn't deepen the study of those schools.
It's easier with Theravada where everyone seems more informed and don't speak complete nonsense. At least it's much harder to find such people there. My experience is more or less like this: if I meet 10 Zen practitioners, 1 will make sense. If I meet 10 Theravadins, 1 won't make sense. PL practitioners are so few that I couldn't say, really.
Forget the numbers, which are just a joke, but do you get what I'm saying?
This is my personal experience. At a more institutional level, one would expect some curiosity, but alas, that's the sate of things, pretty much because of what Namdrol said, I guess. I wouldn't know.