I see.
So because the commercial consumer audio products magazines never write
critical reviews in order to not hurt the advertisers; and the ARRL sells ad
space in QST; therefore ARRL doesn't write critical reviews in order to not
hurt the advertisers?
Sorry, that's not proof. Thats 2 + 2 = 22.
Can you (or anyone else trying this argument) show anything close to proof
of your theory? Can you show me someone who used to work in the ARRL lab
that can verify a bad review was panned or rewritten in a positive light
after advertising pressure?
And once again, why is the ARRL being picked on? By the same logic, are you
implying that CQ, 73, WorldRadio et al also all do the same thing, and if
so, where's the proof? Surely if everyone was doing this, sooner or later
SOMEONE in the know would blow the whistle.
I have already strayed too far from the main topic of the reflector, and for
that, I apologize to all. Anyone who wishes to discuss this further with
me, please, out of respect to the rest of the reflector, let's do it
privately.
73, ron wn3vaw
And now, the 2002 Version of the Jack Bogut Memorial Joke:
Why are they serving beer at PNC Park this year?
Because for the first time in 9 years, the Pirates DIDN'T lose the Opener!
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Steffey NY9H <ny9h@arrl.net>
To: Ron Notarius WN3VAW <wn3vaw@fyi.net>; <TenTec@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] ARRL reviews
MINDLESS & FACTLESS ?????!!!!
If you know how to read the noise graphs and the rest of the specs, you can
get a sense of the radio, but don't expect Hey "It's a looser".
When I was selling consumer audio products, the only critical reviews that
ever got written were by the English magazines, all the Stereo Review &
High Fidelity stuff was 99.9% advertorial puff. No advertising Consumer
Reports, who reviews were dead-on when they heralded the stuff I repped (
Dynaco amps & speakers, Sennheiser Headphones ) had a chance of being
critical .
recurring revenue is king....."don't bite the hand that signs ad contracts"
bill
At 01:29 PM 4/10/02, Ron Notarius WN3VAW wrote:
>Are we discussing Ten Tec or descending into mindless and factless League
>bashing?
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Paul DeWitte K9OT <k9ot@mhtc.net>
>To: <TenTec@contesting.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 1:01 PM
>Subject: [TenTec] ARRL reviews
>
>
>I think you guys have lost sight of who pays the big bills at ARRL
>advertizing. Now how would you write your report?
>would you offend a big spender or a little one, regardless of how the lab
>tests turn out? Any way ARRL has lost total sight of their original
>objective and have no creditability with me. Personal opinion only 73 Paul
>K9OT
>
>_______________________________________________
>TenTec mailing list
>TenTec@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TenTec mailing list
>TenTec@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|