I am a long-time resident in the C++ chat room. I was present when this happened. I validated some of those flags. Here's my take on the issue.
This chat room is not a room where people are exclusively to discuss any professional, theoretical, or whatever problem thrown at them by whoever comes by. It's called "Lounge" for a reason: The room's goal is to be a place for SO's C++ programmers to hang out, chat, and recreate. And it's pretty damn successful at achieving that goal. Per agenda, almost anything is on topic in this room, including, but not limited to, math, sex, drugs, and C++.
Over time, the room has developed its own peculiar culture. Among that is, for example, its very own FAQ, coined "newbie hints", always linked to from the top of the right-hand panel ("starboard"). Regulars are, erm, regularly encouraging newcomers to go and read that first.
The newbie hints' very first paragraphs explain the room's approach with people coming and asking questions. To paraphrase: You can try, but it's a recreational setting, and if nobody is interested, you better try at SO proper. To quote literally: "Specifically, nobody in the chat feels any obligation to answer questions." (Note: To stress this point, this part got its own wiki page since I wrote this paragraph, so you won't find those literal words anymore at the page I originally linked to.)
Now, that shouldn't come as a surprise, because it is actually true for any forum on the Internet: If you do not manage to interest others in your problem, you will not get any interesting answers. This is, however, especially true in a recreational facility that's a mere appendix to a (set of) site(s) specifically dedicated to answer any (on-topic) question thrown at it.
That doesn't mean one should not try. If there's someone in the room who's in the know and interested, almost any kind of question could discussed and answered. I specifically remember one of the regulars discussing UML diagrams with a newbie a whole damn night, also C#, Java, and VB issues being discussed, and one guy getting help with (I'm not kidding!) his French language homework. If there's someone in the room who's in the know, interested, and has time to kill, if the questions are understandable — and if whoever asks does not come across condescending, rude, or insulting, such questions might have a chance.
So much for the preliminaries. (Yes, I am long-winded, but it's you who wants something from me, so you will have to deal with me the way I am or forgo my input altogether.) Here's how I view the incident:
You came into the room with a problem, threw the users present a few bones which were hard to identify and looked icky. The room inhabitants nevertheless stayed polite, tried to sort through those bones in order to discuss and, eventually, answer your problem, and tried to get out of you what you were actually asking about. When that failed, they lost interest and advised you to better ask a well-formulated question on SO proper. — However, you became increasingly hostile, were ignoring advice, and in the end you even insulted the room's inhabitants.
Well, guess what, if you step into a room and you start to annoy and insult those chatting away there, then they will very likely consider you annoying and insulting. (You might want to write this down and memorize it, because it isn't specific to SO, or that chat, or that room, at all, but is true universally.) However, there's a difference between that real-world scenario and the chat: There is a built-in mechanism in the chat through which users can express that they are feeling annoyed and insulted over specific messages you say — and the system will react to that automagically by removing those messages and banning you for a while.
That is to say: Nobody explicitly kicked you out, everybody was just expressing their annoyance. Of course, having been in the chat for a while, most of the users present knew exactly that kicking you out would be a byproduct of expressing their annoyance — but you made sure that many of us used the flagging to that effect, and that nobody shed a tear over you getting thrown out.
The irony is that in the Lounge there are rather strong sentiments against flagging to the point where the newbie hints even warn about flagging. To break that habit, it takes a strong incentive. You seem to have provided just that.
Now, when I look at the comment discussions here, it truly feels like not only haven't you taken away a lesson from what happened to you in that room, you didn't even learn anything from the critique expressed here — despite the fact that some of it was by users who not only weren't in the room when you were flagged, but who are even rather open about not liking the room and its inhabitants very much. In other words: They actually should be more inclined to side with you and against us on the issue; If they are siding with those they otherwise openly sneer at here, then that's a very strong indication that this whole thing should provide an important lesson or two for you to learn about changing your own behavior.
Let me repeat it plainly: If you want others to help you, you will have to work hard to make them understand your problem, you will have to consider their advice, you will have to be polite, you will have to respect their culture, and you will have to accept when they give up on you. It might seem annoying to you, but it really boils down to a simple rule: You want something from me for free, you make it easy for me. You fail to do so ==> no cookies from me.
One more hint: If there's one driver coming at you in the wrong lane, it's likely he's the problem. If everybody is driving the wrong lane, however, it's likely you are the problem. Believe me, I know what I am talking about. I was young once, too, and I still have a couple of very lousy shirts hidden in the rear of my wardrobe.