I'm not dismissing. I'm saying if we're going to have a meaningful discussion of a bike's ride and handling, some precise language is going to have to be involved. People familiar with how, say, a 60cm frame behaves can't necessarily extrapolate the same characteristics to a 52cm frame from the same builder. Or, for that matter, a 60cm frame with a different pair of wheels.
Terms like "aggressive" when it comes to riding style don't say a whole lot. For example, when I raced, I was not a powerful rider on the flats. I couldn't sprint out of corners all day long. For that very reason, though, I cornered and descended quite "aggressively" so as not to lose the plot. I preferred hitting the corners fast and drafting on downhills to closing gaps. So is that aggressive? I certainly knew pretty quickly when a bike was prone to understeering - it's one of the reasons I wasn't sad to part with my Fondriest, even though I thought it climbed well and was stable on descents.
Then again, I also wrote, basically, that I'm sure you were correct about the Merckx ride qualities you wrote about, because I'm willing to trust your experience to that extent without anything else to go on. I just don't think it justifies cult status for a frame or bike that is mezzo-mezzo in terms of workmanship - my .02.