I agreed with the first two sentences of your original post. People waste entirely too much time writing about git vs svn.
However, you are absolutely wrong here. The blub argument is not that you must use git to have a valid opinion about git. It is that you must grok the power of the features. You could have a reasonable background of modern version control by using Mercurial, DARCS, BitKeeper, etc, even if it didn't inform you perfectly about what git can do (rebase -i anyone?). However if you've only used SVN or CVS then you are completely in the dark. I'm sorry but it's the indisputable truth. It's like someone who's never programmed in anything but Java, explaining how LISP macros are of no use to them. As if they would even know what a macro could do for them.
... and I'm absolutely aware of what git can do.
I'm not making an uninformed choice here, I know the fun things git can do, and I'm sure if I switched to git, I'd probably spend all day playing with its awesome features, then I'd probably write a blog post proclaiming how awesome it is.
Or, I could just continue using svn which perfectly fits my use case and does everything I need it to do. As I say, it stays out of my way and doesn't take any of my time up.
You seem to assume everyone uses revision control in exactly the same way and that everyone has exactly the same needs/pain points/etc
