Many. If there isn't one active right now, wait five minutes.
This is an annual debate at the very least.
I don't know if it would have been *just* as poorly received, since in pre-Crisis the idea that "work Clark" was mostly a disguise was the standard approach more often than not. It wouldn't have been much of a change at the time, but instead an acknowledgement of what was already established. But it would have been poorly received anyway, I think. The premise that one side or the other is "real" while the other is a complete fabrication isn't going to be taken well by fans because it's the tension *between* Clark and Superman that makes him so intriguing and fun to read about. Saying one is totally legit and one is totally a mask simplifies a complex dual psychology and turns it into something generic.
"Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter" is largely an act, absolutely. But that's what Clark shows to people at the office he doesn't know well, and who he can't allow to know him because of secret identity concerns. But the Clark Kent who plays D&D with Jimmy Saturday nights, and buys Lois a coffee every morning, that's the part of "Clark" that's real.
Eh, I've come to think that this is just the shorthand version of just arguing pre- or post-Crisis. There's tons of differences between the eras that ultimately matter a lot more than how Clark perceives himself in his inner monologue. But the "Super/Clark" debate kind of captures all the rest of it in a nutshell. If you're a "Clark is who I am" fan, you want stories where Clark matters, so a lot of stuff has to be on earth and Metropolis. But if you like pre-Crisis, you'd probably find that restrictive and would prefer Superman to travel more and have "bigger" adventures beyond the city and earth, but the more important "Clark" is, the more it takes to justify any lengthy journey. And that leads into power levels (more powerful = bigger scope adventures), rogues (it'd be odd to find Toyman on Almerac), and all the rest.