I guess I would agree that anyone that speaks categorically about anything that they don't have direct experience with probably shouldn't do that. That said, I'd be careful about assuming that the AMP discussion is as simple as the old dudes that don't want the J model, for example.
I was originally excited about the AMP as it was described. How it has turned out, and some of this has to do with changes forced by triggers set up under the Nunn–McCurdy amendment, make it a horrible deal for the taxpayers and aircrews, in my opinion. While I would be sorry to see Navs and Engs go, I would be totally in favor of getting J models versus AMPs (so you can see I'm not "ignorant and anti-technology".)
I have a fair amount of experience with many types of glass cockpit setups, and I stand by what I said that the AMP is a bad bad deal. The only thing that jumps out as a huge jump in capability is the FMS vs. SCNS. As far as the SA increase goes, it just isn't there in my opinion. In addition, you lose some of the ergonomic improvements that came with the H3, as in the AMP bird some warning lights go back to being scattered around the cockpit. New Cessna 172s with the Garmin G1000 cockpit with synthetic vision provide an amazing amount of easy-to-process information. The AMP setup is already obsolete, and it continues to shed capability to save $. I am against the AMP partly BECAUSE I want new and better technology, not because I resist it.
Lovek, have YOU spent much time in an AMP airplane, pushing buttons and talking to the engineers? If you have I'm surprised you are in favor of it.