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

On May 11, 12:50=A0pm, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On 11 Mai, 15:06, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 12:00=A0pm, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On 11 Mai, 14:52, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 11, 11:05=A0am, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
> > > > > On 11 Mai, 10:31, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > You don't need to be a racer to understand how races can be
*fix=
ed*.-
>
> > > > > So, Scott never auditions audio equipment?
>
> > > > =A0I auditioned my Quads though not in my home.
> > > > I've never "auditioned" equipment in my home.
> > > > I've always had to purchase it first.
>
> > > You certainly do comparative listening.
>
> > =A0Occasionally at shops and at home on stuff
> > I've bought.
>
> I just fail to see the logical connection whereby you
> will buy stuff without even having ever heard it, and
> yet you object to reviews based upon opinions.

 No really. I object to reviews that always find wonder
where there is none.

> According to your criteria, you don't even need reviews at all,
> DBT or otherwise.So its nothing to you,

 Now you got it. S'phile is nothing to me.  All I've ever said is
I would those BS pontifications a bit more credible if they
had some DBT proof with 'em.
Without it, they're just another opinion with the stench of
corruption wrapped around 'em.  I can find less biased
opinions elsewhere so I have no need.

> unless you just want to
> play the role of audio nanny.

 I'm not insisting you share my opinion.
Why do you seem so distressed that I don't
share yours, Nanny?

ScottW