The quality/value thread is interesting and entertaining, but one thing that clogs it up (and clogs up lots of other threads) is "straw man" arguments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manThese are arguments where somebody incorrectly restates somebody else's point, and then disagrees with it, and then the first person comes back and says, "That's not what I said," and we get fifteen posts about who said what. For example, Michael never really said that a G10 is as good as a P45+, or that DxO marks are useless, or that an A900 is absolutely as good as a D3x in all ways...
If somebody makes a point about his experience, and you recast it in terms of *your* experience, you may have set up a straw man: somebody in the discussion said that he needed to use MFDB is his business to be competitive, and somebody else said (in effect), "That's incorrect, because I have a business and don't need them," and that's a straw man, because the businesses are different.
The problem with straw man arguments is that they are pointless, and aggravating, and cause people to repost the same point they already posted once, in an attempt to clarify, and you get these long, pointless inane arguments that never go anywhere, and make it difficult to read the threads.
JC
