Originally posted by TunnelRat
To the first paragraph, I don’t see where I said those wouldn’t be detrimental to hitting a target. I’m aware of that fact. I’m also aware of the importance of reliability, nor do I see where anything I said is counter to that. I don’t disagree there is still room for varying ideas. My point in mentioning the caveats is that even in the realm of personal preference there are actions that can be taken that are detrimental to the proper usage of a firearm. I’m basically agreeing with you and extending that logic.
I was simply trying to explain the reason that I included those caveats. You pointed out that I included "a lot of caveats" in my original statement and I was simply trying to point out that even despite those caveats, I think my statement leaves a lot of room for variation between different techniques and personal preferences. We are in agreement insofar as that if a given technique inhibits someone's ability to hit their target while maintaining safety and reliable operation, then that technique is wrong
for them. The only point I'm trying to make is that while a given technique might be wrong for one person, it isn't necessarily wrong for everyone. After all, we aren't Mandalorians and any given technique isn't necessarily
the way 
Originally posted by TunnelRat
To the second paragraph, I explicitly mentioned the reliable function of gun. I would agree, and I don’t believe this is counter to what I’ve said above, that if you repeatedly short stroke a trigger then you as a shooter need to revise your technique if your plan is to continue using that firearm. My point has been and continues to be that someone not liking that they have to change their technique isn’t, imo, inherently wrong and neither is expressing as much in the context of a review.
I agree, disliking a particular aspect of a gun and expressing that opinion isn't inherently wrong. What I take exception to is when a reviewer is so short-sighted to think that because a gun doesn't work for them and their chosen technique, then it couldn't possibly work well for anyone else. I, for example, don't particularly care for Glock pistols because, among other reasons, I find their grips to feel unnatural and be uncomfortable for me to shoot. I do not, however, opine that Glocks or their features are "garbage" or "poorly designed" rather that there are simply other guns that work better for me.
If a reviewer said something along the lines of "the trigger reset on this pistol was longer and/or less perceptible than I prefer" or "I experienced some short-stroking of the trigger because the trigger reset on this pistol is very different from what I'm accustomed to" I'd have no issue with it. However, I hear a lot of reviewers say things like "this gun's trigger reset is horrible" or "this gun is worthless because of the trigger reset." Besides being a bit hyperbolic, I don't think such statements give much of a frame of reference to the reader than thus limit the utility of the information in the review.
Originally posted by TunnelRat
To your last paragraph, while I agree people can be dogmatic about technique l, what I’m more talking is people being upset because a reviewer doesn’t review a firearm well and that happens to be a firearm the person in question likes. I see that very often, I’d say just as often if not moreso than anything to do with technique. If we can acknowledge that personal preference plays into choice of technique, then we should also be able to recognize that someone not liking a firearm can also be a matter of personal preference. What I have found is people get offended and then proceed to argue with the reviewer. I’m not saying all comments to a reviewer are unfounded, nor for that matter does it stop someone from posting those comments if they are unfounded, people are free to express themselves. But I see many people get personally attached to inanimate objects.
Oh how right you are. People get very personally invested in whatever their gun/car/fashion choice/etc. are. My point is that this personal bias and emotional attachment goes both ways. While I understand that personal bias and/or preference can never be completely eliminated from any review, when I watch or read a product review I expect the reviewer to at least attempt to make a reasonably objective assessment of the product.
Maybe it's because they're trying to gain attention by being "edgy" or maybe they're trying to avoid being labeled "shills" or "sellouts" but I seem to notice a lot of reviewers going out of their way to bash on features they don't like, honestly to the point of being a bit juvenile. If they don't like the trigger reset of a pistol, that's fine but at least describe
why you don't like it or, better yet, compare it to one you do like so we have some frame of reference. Instead I too often see features that a reviewer doesn't like simply described with a colorful pejorative like "garbage" or "worthless" which, while making for a colorful review, isn't really all that helpful to someone seeking useful information.
