Originally Posted by davluri
I don't really care who holds the stir stick, Volkl doesn't go down to the local Tap store to stock up on off the shelf epoxy, like your local indie. OK? figuratively, right? Notice here how you've shifted the terms of your all-encompassing original argument, about majors literally making their own materials, to majors getting subcontracters to make components to their own specs, and now to majors not using local hardware store brands (which you imply indies do). Then you toss in the "figuratively" to disallow anything you've said previously to be falsified. Thus anything anyone else provides as evidence against your conclusions is irrelevant because you were speaking "figuratively." Nice. I am quite certain that the big european major manufacturers at least specify properties and likely create the formula for their elements. We'll see, won't we? If it turns out, as Iggy's stating, that they may not, will you wiggle out of this one too? Likewise, if someone mills their edges, it's to their specs, This appears to be scoring an important conclusion, but it's self-evident (what company would ask edges to be be milled to someone else's specs?) In reality, you've moved significantly from your original conclusions, but can't or won't admit it. a big enough run to justify proprietary engineering. Someone posted up some brands of ski elements, but I fail to see what that says about which companies buy it.
Clearly, this is mostly about people trying to prove to themselves that they have made a good purchase, when they know they haven't, or they wouldn't be so defensive about the skis they own or back. Notice that when people disagree with your broad claims, they are being defensive or insecure about their skis. Thus, you've defined, a priori, that your argument's right before you begin. It's not a logical argument, but a set of unfalsifiable claims. I could not ever be affected or insulted by what you say about my gear. Not one iota. So what's your insecurity that makes you so uneasy about what you ski on?
And mtc, now you're officially stocking me, dickwad. When logic or evidence fail, you resort to calling people names. My ten year old handles himself better. And spells better, too. Your posts hold no interest whatsoever to me. Why do mine fascinate you so much?
Beyond, check your facts. We now have all wood touring Snow Rangers and SkiLogics made in Colorado to thank you for. You're welcome. And I do. As I stated in that Snow Ranger thread, I last owned SR's in the late 90's, and was under the impression they were all wood. I recalled it wrongly. I also stand corrected about SkiLogik; the "about us" page speaks of Colorado and uses the first person plural to describe production. Should have read further about "moving halfway around the world." But two points that seem to elude you:
First, humans, myself included, are capable of using mistaken facts. The key, both logically and ethically, is to acknowledge them and see if and how they affect what's on the table. But through shifting language, ignoring most of the apparent falsifications, and keeping your terms of argument vague, you avoid responsibility for what seem like large factual mistakes, cut and dried. This makes you come across less like a clever guy killing time on the web and more like a local politician dodging and weaving. Is that what you seek? Second, note that logically, neither of my mistakes, one which is in another thread, or any other minor errata you can ferret out of others' arguments necessarily falsify any current arguments' conclusions. These conclusions do not rest on one case, or three. Why? Because you set yourself up by initially making large overarching claims about all majors and all indies. Finding one major that makes its own epoxy, or one indie that uses hardware store stuff - which I doubt you'll do - does not prove your totalizing claims. In fact, you've got it backward. All we have to do is find one exception to shoot your argument down. Ain't deduction a bitch? Of course, by now using words like "mostly," and "figuratively," you are now backing off from a totalizing claim you can't support toward one that is unfalsifiable, since you do not operationalize "mostly," or "figuratively." Gee, guess you win.
Ecm, you're just guessing and bluffing, as usual. Ad hominem attack; his past history of argument has no bearing on the present one. You're not the only one on Epic who does this, but it gets tiring, especially when mixed in with stuff like "dickwad."