I was not being disrespectful towards you or anyone else. We are here to help each other.
I was a "lightweight" backpacker before a lot of BPL members were born. During decades of hiking I did not have the option of great informational sources like BPL. Once my kit was set, it pretty much stayed the same for 3 decades; depending on the conditions of the trip. Over the years I did replace single items when better, lighter, and most importantly more functional pieces appeared on the market.
In 2008, as I approached the age of 60, I realized I was not as fast or strong as in my younger days. So I joined BPL to see what the current state of the hobby was at. Getting under 10 lbs was easy, under 5 lbs not difficult either. But I started focusing on the weight goal, not the function or efficiency of my gear as an integrated system. I had a misguided perception that lighter was better -- that base weight trumped all other factors.
So each of us should ask ourselves...
Is 9 lbs better than 10; is 6 better than 9; is 4 better than 6; etc. Eventually the hiker gets to the point of diminishing returns. The answer to the above question is, "depends." So you need to look at each item in your kit for function, integration, and efficiency as it applies to the entire system. We need to ask:
Is a Murmur better than a Jam?
Is a Hexamid better than a Trailstar?
Is a Katabalaic quilt better than a WM sleeping bag?
Is a Snow Peak GS-100 better than a Caldera Cone?
Is a GPS/iPhone better than a lensatic compass and map?
Is a Nalgene water bottle better than a Aquafina bottle?
Is a filter better than tablets?
Is a Therm-a-rest better than a NightLite?
The answer to all these questions is, "depends."
In 2010 I posted this in response to a state of the market report on frameless packs:
"As they say in architecture, "form follows function." And in backpacking, function should be paramount to weight. Lightest isn't always best. Although I have a a pretty light kit, I am not entirely thrilled with the function of every single item. Now that it is easy for me to work in the 4lb - 7lb range all the time, I may move to some heavier but more functional items. I am especially concerned with some items that are "throw away," have a limited life span, or require too much care or attention on my part to prevent damage to them."
Today most of my trips utilize a base weight of around 7 lbs, which includes a "heavy" internal frame pack. Works for me, the conditions, and the amount of food, fuel, and water I carry. Total pack weight is much more important than base weight, and base weight should be a function of how much food, water, and fuel you carry on any specific trip; and the gear required for the conditions. Ultimately we need to stay warm, dry, and comfortable.
Sometimes I still go with sub 5 lb kits -- if it is the right kit for the trip. You can check one of my gear lists in my profile. It is under 4 lbs (I think). You can also check several of my trip reports, most of which include gear lists. Trip Reports.
I have a spreadsheet that calculates weights. It is a good tool. For each trip I choose the particular items I need for the trip. After I pick the items, the weight is the weight. So be it. I don't start substituting items to lower the weight any more, because I already selected what I need. I used to be concerned with the total weight, but to be honest that got boring after a while.
And the good news? I only bought 2 pieces of gear last year.
For any gear list that someone posts, to me, the question should be are there better options for the type of hikes I do, the terrain and weather I hike in. Once options for individual pieces are identified, the total weight is what it is. That should be more important than how do I get below XX pounds. Again, all of this is just my opinion. Everyone has their opinion; good, bad or indifferent. Remember, I used to try to get below XX pounds as the goal. Not any more.