I'm new to pipe-smoking, and I haven't yet met a pipe tobacco I don't like, so I don't really qualify to post in this thread. But one thing that has struck me is that in the whole discussion of aro/non-aro, it seems that the differences in tobacco are so often exaggerated. I don't find aromatic, non-aromatic, and "English" (latakia) blends to be so radically different from each other.
For example, I still can't really detect any discernible flavor in Mac Baren's Mixture Scottish Blend. I believe it's there because it's always listed as an aromatic, but it doesn't taste dramatically different from some non-aromatics I have. I would think this sort of aro would appeal to those who mainly smoke non-aros, so I'm not surprised to see it listed here a few times.
From the way some people describe it, smoking an aro is like smoking a piece of bubble-gum, while smoking a latakia-based blend is like smoking a tire fire. I found both to be delightful and not all that different. I think a lot of people would enjoy a wider variety of tobacco if reviews didn't so often use such strong language in describing the flavors. I was initially scared off from trying a lot of tobaccos that I now really enjoy.
But again, I don't have a refined palate, so perhaps I'll start being as sensitive as others before long. :D