The truth is, none of us knows exactly what hell is like. We know it's extreme, in the extreme. We are told of the reactions of those who are placed there, and they aren't happy.
Jeff, let me pose a brief "thought experiment":
Assume for the moment that we knew precisely what hell was like. We knew the temperature, we knew the humidity. We knew exactly and precisely the conditions and sensations of those placed in hell (or, for this question, the Lake of Fire).
If we had perfect and mutual knowledge of this experience of judgment, and it was fully as horrible as we both imagine and anticipate it to be, why would a duration of (earth time) 30 years, 300 years, 3,000 years etc., not be both sufficient as a disincentive, completely humbling and (perhaps) rehabilitating to those who experience it? Punishment does not have to be absolute to provide disincentive.
I'll be silly a bit to make the point:
Why do you avoid of Poison Ivy? It doesn't last forever.
Why do you not stick your fingers in electrical sockets? It's not enough to kill you and there are no lasting effects.
Why don't you commit any and every crime for which there isn't a death penalty? You'll get out eventually.
Can a URist answer this simple question? What is hell like and why should somebody be fearful of hell if All will live in God's glory eventually?
This just is not a coherent criticism of Reconciliation. Goodness Gracious. Hell, in the Christian construct, is literally the most horrible experience we can imagine,
infinitely unpleasant. It therefore certainly need not be
infinitely long to be fearful.