Re: Rx for DBTs in hobby magazines ... LOt"S ;-)

On May 10, 12:05=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 9, 3:10=A0pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> <artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On May 9, 3:37=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On May 8, 2:53=A0pm, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > =A0I don't. =A0I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a
DBT =
with
> > > > > you as subject. =A0You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
> > > > > confused.
>
> > > > Let's expand on that truth.
> > > > You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
> > > > else but you are completely useless.
>
> > > =A0Not at all. =A0If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
> > > his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
> > > he's gotta provide some proof.
>
> > My guess is that the reviewer cares about whether or not you believe
> > it about as much as as any of us care about whatever your latest jihad
> > is about.
>
> > Which is to say "not at all".
>
> =A0Which is why they attract just a few 10's of thousands
> of paid subscribers in a market of hundreds of millions.
> S'phile has very little respect in many of the audio forums
> that I've read.

Then your option is to not buy it.

Huffing and puffing about reviewers doing DBTs when you will not
perform one yourself is a bit silly, yes?

LOL!