Re: Death to ABXers! Read Testament Here!

In article 
<7f44d2ac-2177-4615-8aaa-1a7fee47c017@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 ScottW <ScottW48@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:


> > > > > Green pens, power cables, pingo discs, stardust etc etc etc.
> >
> > > > So those are some reviews with which you disagree.  Where is the
> > > > evidence that it was money that influenced them?
> >
> > > Process of elimination.  This is the most likely
> >
> > Why?
> 
>    You remind me of my grandkids at times.

They sound like fine kids ;-)

Anyway, why is it the most likely?  Maybe it was just the reviewers 
opinion?

> 
> >
> > > and the least
> > > damning of all possible causes.
> >
> > Doesn't mean that it's the correct one.
> 
> I'm cutting 'em slack.  The alternatives to corruption
> are worse IMO.   Go ahead and think worse than corruption
> if you choose, I'd be curious to hear your evidence.

By the way, did the green pen, disc, and stardust people advertise in 
SP?  I don't know.

> 
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Money is the ultimate bias. When it's involved corruption
follows.
> > > > > No one is immune.
> >
> > > > I see.  So you are against all reviews in all areas, i.e. food,
wine,
> > > > concerts, movies, books, etc?
> >
> > >  Not at all. Wine, movies and concerts are all obviously
> > > subjective areas.
> >
> > All of them listed are subjective.
> >
> > >  And they are often critical.
> > > But you make a good point.
> > > The wine industry is full of pompous fools who
> > > can't tell apple juice from goat urine.
> > > The beer fools are even worse. How does Miller
> > > Lite get those awards?
> > > When was the last audio review you read that said this
> > > amp sounds just like about 40,000 other amps of similar
> > > design?
> >
> > I agree that there are not enough negative reviews.  Absolute Sound
> > probably leads that category.  By the way, did you read their reviews
> > during the time that they didn't accept any advertising?  Or Audio
> > Critic?
> 
>   No, but I was reading Stereo Review many years ago when it
> was subscription funded.

Wow, that must have really been ages ago.  I started reading it 
somewhere around 1970, and they were running ads at that time.

>   I don't recall promotion of ridiculous
> products.

I remember them liking pretty much everything they reviewed.

> 
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > For example...when you submitted your resume to Mira Costa
> > > > > you likely included some significant accomplishments.
> > > > > Did you also highlight your weaknesses, your failures,
> > > > > your ****ups?
> >
> > > > > No? Where's the evidence?
> >
> > > > Just about the biggest apples vs. oranges I've yet seen.  I mean
> > > > really...
> >
> > > Hey... you want the job. They want the adds.
> >
> > Still apples and oranges.
> 
>  And all fruit.

OK...

> 
> > It's one's job with a job application to
> > promote oneself.
> 
>  It's one piece of equipement provided at no expense to
> promote one product.

What's the alternative to the companies supplying the gear?

> 
> >
> > > And showing a willingness to be critical isn't going
> > > to create the stampede of equipment providers to
> > > the rags doors now is it?
> >
> > So again, you are pretty much against all reviews are aren't strictly
a
> > telling of objective data?
> 
>  Nope. I'm against reviews where the $$money$$ bias in play
> is so obvious you can almost see it.

In your opinion.  You sure seem to be saying that any subjective review 
is tainted by money.  How is subjective audio reviewing different from 
food, wine, and the rest of the list?