Mmmmmm it means, to me them minor discrepancies in accuracy between the two are irrelevant you would never notice it.
Here in upper Michigan, we just received 0.82" of rain in a 4 day period. Had the temperature been 1-2F degrees cooler during most of those days, we would have received 6-10" (15-25cm) of snow. Still think a degree or two doesn't really matter?
What happens when you (or anyone buying a station with a 2% margin of error) sees 31F (or -1C) on their weather station but looks outside only to see it's raining! Will it matter how often you are seeing temperature updates if they are wrong?
Forget about trying to determine if a particular month or year was above or below normal or whether a record was set unless it's obvious even to those without weather stations. Most monthly or yearly average temperature differentials are going to fall inside your margin of error.
Now, I am not trying to say that everyone needs to be a scientist or share the same priorities. I am, however, saying that if you're going to proclaim that some weather station that hasn't even hit the market is clearly better than its predecessors (particularly one as robust and proven as the VP2) based solely on how often it updates or whether it possesses fan assistance at a particular price point, then all's fair in love and war.
While I personally chose the fan assisted model, you cannot ignore 150 years of climate records based on passive thermometers because some new gizmo is available. There's still plenty of debate within the weather community over whether fans produce more accurate or more exaggerated results.
