I hear you...those posts about "showing all possibilities and claiming victory afterward" annoy me because they are simply false and simplistic. That kind of comment shows a real lack of understanding of just how model ensemble systems work. There is no showing of "every possibility". If that were literally true and taken to its illogical end, we'd see forecast QPF or snow of 0" to infinity inches (or some other ridiculous range). That's not how they work. Ensembles for a particular modeling system operate under the constraints of how the physics and dynamics of that modeling system are programmed. The initial conditions are perturbed in various ways (different Centers use different techniques), and a certain number of ensemble members are produced, based upon computational resources, etc.
Do the ensembles sometimes show a wide range of solutions? Sure! Are the perfect or always great? Of course not! But they're a tool. You look at them as a whole, you look at the mean, you try to find where there are potentially two camps or groupings of solutions, etc. And you can compare what different model ensemble products are showing (EPS vs. GFS, for example). They also give you an idea of how "confident" one can be in a model's overall interpretation of a solution, e.g., if the ensembles are grouped more closely and the deterministic counterpart is within that envelope of solutions.
Sorry to go off on a rant here, it wasn't aimed at you, I was just expounding a bit on what you said because I likewise get aggravated at comments like that (from this particular poster or others who say the same).