Re: Death to ABXers! Read Testament Here!

On May 7, 3:43 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
<artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 7, 1:16 am, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <76142954-b247-4f87-a48c-7571b396e...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >  ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > 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...
> >
> > What would be your alternative to manufacturers lending gear for
reviews?
>
> Do what the automobile reviewers do, of course.
>
> Buy every single BMW, Mercedes, Saleen and Ferrari they review.
>
> Otherwise there will be no satisfying 2pid.

As willing as I am to start spending tens of thousands
of dollars each month purchasing review samples to
satisfy ScottW, he has already declared that he isn't
a reader of Stereophile, nor has he any intention of
ever becoming a reader of Stereophile. So there would
not be any point in my complying with his demand, surely?

In any case, if we did purchase our review samples,
it would inevitably be argued by the likes of ScottW
that we would then have a strong incentive to publish
glowing reviews, in order to be able to more easily
unload those samples on the second-hand market. So,
to sum up ScottW's argument: 1) Magazine reviewers
who depend on loans from manufacturers are corrupt;
2) reviewers who purchase review samples must also
be corrupt. :-)

(I know ScottW is outraged by my use of the smiley
icon, but there are those on this group who would
otherwise take my summing up above as an
admission that all reviewers are corrupt.)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile