Re: Death to ABXers! Read Testament Here!

On May 6, 11:14=A0am, John Atkinson <stereoedi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 5, 6:48=A0pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <7f44d2ac-2177-4615-8aaa-1a7fee47c...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > =A0ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > I'm cutting 'em slack. =A0The alternatives to corruption
> > > are worse IMO. =A0 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 [Stereophile]? =A0I don't know.
>
> None of these manufacturers advertised in Stereophile. But to cut
> a long thread short, this is argued by the likes of ScottW to be
> irrelevant, becausse we gave the products positive coverage due
> to the manufacturers might wanting to advertise in the future.

 Likes of?   Why do you try to so blatantly stereotype people?
It's disgusting and offensive.  My comments are my own.
I'd appreciate it you'd try to refrain from blatant bigotry and
don't paint me with others comments or others with mine.
It's dishonest, disgusting, and intellectually weak.

But let's point out that in addition to advertising $$ from the
gear mf'ers, I don't think Atkinson actually pays any money
for the gear he reviews. If, the reviews are truly critical and the
mf'ers stop cooperating with this advertising masquerading as
equipment reviews, his house of cards collapses.
If all corruption needs is op****tunity, Stereophile provides
plenty.


> So,
> to sum up: if the manufacturers advertise, the reviewer is guilty
> of corrupt behavior; if the manufacturers don't advertise, the
> reviewer is guilty of corrupt behavior. :-)

Unbelievable the transparent crap you will spew and assume a mere :)
makes it all ok.
Your subscriber base must be a bunch of absolute fools.

>
> John Atkinson
> Editor (though not a particularly skilled one base upon this error
filled =
post), Stereophile

ScottW