Originally Posted by
genejockey
Perhaps, but it's also a whole hell of a lot more than 1%, which was the original postulate. And 5% may not be a day-and-night difference, but people pay a hell of a lot of money for much smaller differences.
Because I felt it was simply trying to paper over having underestimated the difference.
But that's not what happened. It was "This is the change and it's too small to matter", which I rebutted with "Here are some data suggesting the change is much larger"..
Whatever he did, it wasn't goalpost shifting. He never laid out a goal, and I didn't read his 1% figure to be any serious kind of estimate. All he did was pick a really small number and then said the number you found was also small. There's nothing unfair about saying 5X a really small number is still a small number.
To be honest, I have no dog in this fight as I think it perfectly rational for one person to say 5% is important for his purposes and another to say it isn't important for his own purposes. I just don't think it's fair to call something that's so obviously not goalpost shifting "goalpost shifting".
You can disagree whether 5% is or isn't a small number. Hell if I have much of an opinion about it either way. I just hate downtube shifters.