Are linear tracking arms better than pivoted arms?

Dear Darkmoebius, if indeed

..."In which case, it all boils down to what sounds best in each particular system and owner's mind." ...

then all discussion is kind of waste of time - isn't it ?
This is similar to discussion about religious issues. In the end - when one party runs out of arguments - the final defensive statement will always be "but I believe".
Here is all comes down to "but I like the sound".
Fine.
In my point of view this is the ultimate thorn-wall against progression.
But then progression in itself was already judged as an erratic way of life by some greek philosophers 2400+ years ago.
Which shines a philosophical spotlight on analog high-end audio.
Now - isn't that nice.....

Dertonarm, I wrote:

"That, is the million dollar question. Unless this greater lateral force can be proven to cause increased distortion or cartridge wear, it is really a non-issue outside of the theoretical realm"

Now, in this particular case, there are two possible outcomes to this "million dollar question": 1) the increased lateral force does not produce increased distortion and/or cartridge wear, 2) the increased lateral force does produce increased distortion and/or cartridge wear

If outcome #1 is true, then I think that such force is a non-issue and it all comes down to personal preference as to what sounds best.

But, if outcome #2 is true, then I(obviously) think that such force IS AN ISSUE beyond personal preference of sound. I don't think many people want to intentionally subject their cartridges to excessive wear/damage.

I hinted that I might contact manufacturers/repairers because they would be the best suited to judge if, and when, a cart is out of spec or damaged - not just from a technical perspective, but also from a statistical one because their sample pool is likely to much larger than that of an individual audiophile.

Darkmoebius, sorry, but I doubt that you will find a cartridge designer/manufacturer with as wide experience in real-world practical audio analog life as several A'goners like Raul, Dougdeacon, Dan_Ed, Syntax, Thuchan to name just a few.
If you want to know about the virtues of a new Ferrari (now Mercedes...) racing car you should better ask Michael Schumacher - he most likely can tell you much more than any of the cars designers ( because he actually drives the car - and he is a much better driver than any of the designers/engineers...).
Furthermore they rarely know about the working history of a cartridge they get for repair/exchange. As too many audiophiles do know too little about set-up ( I have seen about 350 cartridge/tonearm set-ups/alignments so far over the past 30 years in other audiophiles systems. Not 3 of them were actually correct in all parameters - so much for real-life experience) , damage by improper set-up is the rule - not the exception.

The answer to the "million dollar question" is so clear and obvious that there in fact is no question. The physical/mechanical situation - at least under working conditions on this planets surface - is a (sorry...) fact and as such out of real question.

Well gee, if only three out of 350 get set up that will reveal the difference !!!!!
I get better odds in Las Vegas.

Dertonarm, discussion of this subject is absolutely not a waste of time. I think that the opinions, experience, and findings of someone who has so much experience with different equipment as you do, is invaluable. I, for one, appreciate it. But, I think you miss my point.

Whenever I see/hear an argument made, accompanied by a great deal of technical data supporting one viewpoint or another, without at least some mention of how a piece of equipment actually sounds compared to the real thing, the red flags go up for me. Not because technical data is not important (it obviously is), but because the ultimate importance of measurements, relative to real life end results has, time and time again, been thrown into question; at least to some degree.

Without meaning to get too "Zen" about it all, the beauty of music, and less importantly it's reproduction, is the incredible complexity of it all. I think we can all agree (or should agree) that there is still a lot about the playback of recordings that we don't understand. Long held ideas/truths are regularly debunked. Thankfully, there is a lot we do understand, but if we don't always return to respect of the music and IT'S complexity, I think all the other arguments are thrown into question.

Returning to the subject at hand, by way of practical example: While I certainly don't have nearly as much experience with tonearms as you do, I think that my experience with the SME vs. the ET2 makes a point. I think most audiophiles would agree that the SME V, while not the last word in pivoting tonearms, is a quality product, and was the standard in many audiophile circles for a long time. The ET2, in spite of it's "technical" inferiority, consistently sounded more like real music to me. I don't like to bring up this point too often, but I am around the sound of acoustic instruments for several hour every day, so I am sensitive to tonal and dynamics-related issues with equipment. The ET2 consistently let my analog set-up sound more like the real thing, than did the SME; both arms were set up, I assure you, to the endth degree. What does this prove? That I "like the sound of the ET2"? No. If you can demonstrate to me that the SME "works better", from a technical standpoint, than the ET2 does (you probably can), then what it says to me is that there are some things going on with the playback process that we don't fully understand. Personally, I can live with that.