Originally Posted by davluri
Since we review skis a lot, it's relevant to point out, the OP asked for a personal slant, and I gave mine. Why do you, beyond, have a problem with that? I didn't say you couldn't offer your personal experience with these models, but you would like me to withold my experience, saying it does not align well with your background knowledge and the legions who agree with you. It's not a democracy, we don't have to end up with a majority consensus here, rather a lot of personal slants. Different skis work well on different mountains. You don't ski mine, or I yours, so we are without that frame of reference. People like the Shogun here this season for a daily driver, some still like the goat in powder, not so much as a few years ago. that's some info I'm providing the OP.
I have no problem whatsoever with you offering your personal take on a ski. Never said I did. What I do have a problem with is your need to attack other folks who do things here a bit differently than you. As in, offer personal take plus summary of others' stated personal takes. (Really quite common around here, as is offering feedback that is a touch different than the OP asks for. Perhaps that's "weak," and probably we should have moderators delete any post that doesn't specifically address the precise terms of reference used by the OP, no more, no less. What this place needs is some DISCIPLINE!! )
And as for having to end up with a majority consensus, nope, we don't. Won't ever. But again, never said we should, did I? Just said, in several ways (links, italicized quotes, and OED definienda to follow) that 1) I disagreed with you, and 2) Your opinion about Goats was different than the average opinion here or on TGR. Now that's a statement of statistical reality. Go spend a month researching all reviews and posts about all pre 2010 Goats on all web sites, and report back if you think I'm blowing smoke.
Is it invalid or "weak" to bring up the typical take on gear? Well, an ad populum argument is a logical fallacy. So if I had said, "keep your Goats because everyone else does," that's fallacious. But what I said was ( Premise 1): "Well, since he already owns the early Goats, that's a mark in their favor. As in, paid for." (Premise 2, actually a conclusion from embedded premises supported by empirical evidence): Disagree (because)...as with most users ...(I) found them to be unusually supple in tight places, decent carvers, very loose and surfy in soft snow. The torsion box construction gave them a lot of life and they were weirdly light (many used them for AT, weighed less than Mantras as I recall.)" (Premise 3): "The question is, is it (Shogun) actually better enough to justify the opportunity costs...)So looks pretty much OK as a logical argument.
Now is it arguing that you don't count because your opinion is contrary to the majority? Nope. Having an opinion about skis, foods, or politicians that's different from the mean hopefully happens to all of us part of the time. Healthy for our egos. And it doesn't make our opinion less important in itself. But it also doesn't erase the reality of the center of the curve; most people's "personal slant" is otherwise than ours on topic X. The realization that an opinion, or observation of something, or personal action, can be atypical, and that its location in the curve has significance to how we look at it, seems like a foundation of modern intellectual activity, from molecular biology to histories of French food to Supreme Court briefs. Which is why I stated: "Some pieces of evidence are are valuable than others." and referred later to outliers. If I want to buy a car, and it gets 95% buyer satisfaction ratings somewhere, I might glance at the 5% out of due diligence, but I pay far more attention to the fact that almost everybody liked his or her car. Why that is so really really maddening to hear, I have no idea... Here, this may help:
OP: PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO DAVLURI'S OPINION ABOUT GOATS. All better now?