Originally Posted by Bob Lee
Boy, I sure get under your skin for some reason. Sorry if I'm not meeting your expectations, but that's the internet I guess. Yeah internet doesn't help, since adults looking at each other don't tend talk to each other like you do here. But what gets under my skin is fairly obvious: You keep sliding around addressing either of my two arguments (which are that flex of AT boots are overestimated, and that you keep mischaracterizing statements by me and others here), and when you can't think of any other response, you shift the terms of argument. Now it's morphed into "everything's not about you." Or if I use a term like "burly" to describe a stiff boot in a sentence not directed at you, apparently I'm misquoting you and thus you can post little emoticons about my hypocrisy. Reminds me of a decent junior high school debate strategy: When things are looking bad for your side, reframe the argument.
You don't have to swap them out all the time. Is swappable soles really all you got out of that post? Another example of redirecting the argument. Now apparently it's about how little I get out of your pearls of wisdom.
Um, I was addressing the general "you" not you specifically. In that statement I think if you substituted "one" for "you" and "one's" for "your," you (or one) would have a better idea of what I was trying to say. Not everything is specifically about you. This is my personal fav. Unless you're from the deep south, or making a speech in front of a big audience, "you" is used as a singular in modern English. Go ask a linguist. But obviously, my assumption of same, in a passage directed at me, is proof I'm self-absorbed. Good try, at least when no one can see you trying to keep a straight face.
I never said I was an expert, Mr. Quotation-fixation. <-irony. No, and I didn't claim you did. It's OK, keep dropping the allusions to working with patrollers, or how you can recommend some models once you get more information about my feet, and we'll assume you're a non-expert non- fitter who just claims to know a whole lot about AT boots. Can't have it both ways, y'see. Either you're an expert, so we should all listen hard, or you're not, and your advice is worth the same as anyone else here.
Um, I didn't make any assumptions other than that I might be able to help you. I wouldn't (and didn't) recommend any boots without getting a lot of information about your feet. BTW, do you see where the PKB/irony thing is coming in yet? You're killing me here. Yeah, I like the little rolling emoticon too, signals folks who disagree with you are just too funny. But if I "get" the irony, I'll be admitting to doing the same thing I criticize you for, and if I don't, then I'm too thick to see your point. This is called a "complex question" fallacy, along the lines of "When did you stop beating your spouse?" Nice.
Well, it would surprise me, but only because you said that you had "limited experience" with AT boots. But again, I wasn't really making this about you, in spite of your dogged insistence that I am. Ah, so you're not reading me very carefully, but I guess in your case that's always allowable. I said that I had "tried," and in the context of boots not fitting, either I'm very rich and buy, use, sell multiple AT boots each season, or I "tried" them in a store. And yes, after six decades of skiing, I can actually tell in a store if a boot shell is going to fit my foot after work being done on it and new liners put in. There have only been a few that showed promise and only one, the Factor, that actually worked. Which is surprising, given all these 110-120 flex AT boots out there, huh?
Look, I'm really not that interested in your feet or your issues, all I've been trying to do here is address my opinion that there are a number of AT boots out there that would be suitable for many people skiing in bounds a lot of the time. Sorry that you seem to feel it's all about you - I really am - but it isn't. This is another fav, since you've just spent an extraordinary amount of effort aggressively mischaracterizing arguments you don't agree with, and now you're the aggrieved party, a voice of reason just trying to get a simple, moderate point about suitable boots across. And I have issues. You missed your calling, Bob. Run for office. Seriously.