I don't like to see Craig so mad...

[Addix Metzatricity]

...but I [i]DO[/i] like to see that he's so obviously dedicated to his work at EQ. Otherwise, why would he care? Anyway. It's ok Mr. Craig-man.

[Anderton]

Well, I'm about 20% mad, and 80% frustrated. Yes, we all do work hard at EQ. Sometimes it comes pretty close to all-consuming. But I neither expect nor want people to look favorably upon the magazine because we work hard, that should have nothing to do with it. I just want people to look at the content with an open mind and if they like it, THEN look favorably on the magazine. If they don't like it, that's fine; as I said, different magazines serve different audiences. I just don't understand the motivation behind some people being so willing to parade their ignorance in front of others. If people want to come here and accuse me of being a capitalist running dog lackey, okay...do your thing. But to come here and say matter-of-factly that Paul White, who has NOTHING to do professionaliy with EQ, is a sellout just reeks of a total lack of courtesy. If you're so certain he's such a devious guy, why not go on the SOS web site and cite examples for all to see? Why do some of these people go into temporary paralysis when asked to provide any kind of substantiation -- no matter how tenuous -- to back up their claims? Let me also emphasize that I don't speak for the magazine, I speak for myself. Mitch, John, Greg, Doug, Debbie, etc. may have different opinions compared to mine. If anyone has any problems with my answers or my attitude, then you have a problem with me personally, not the magazine...well, unless the other editors all feel the same way :)

[the stranger]

EQ is a great mag. Online bulliten boards aren't any indication of anything. The number of people who posted in that thread was minimal and it all amounts to a bunch of people flexing their arguing skills. EQ is a great mag and will remain to be for the duration. Get a grip, people. We all know that commerce plays a role in the entertainment industry. Making accusations of impropriety are surely hurtful and unsulting to those who feel they are dedicating their life to helping people. In my opinion, the current economy is not a good one. In order for EQ to remain viable, they must meet a set of demands that caters to a whole list of entities with conflicting agendas. The fact that EQ has done it for as long as they have and retain the level of integrity that they do is enough to have my loyalty. Be glad your not reading Redbook. :D

[Alndln]

Actually I want to switch my subscription to the new EQ when my EM sub runs out because I simply don't like EM much anymore,well,somtimes.I guess I missed all the excitement because I didn't read the offending thread.When it comes to magazines dealing with specialized tools in a scecialized genre,your always going to get people accusing the writers of being soft on advertisers or whatever,I guess it's part of the territory whether real or imagined.I wouldn't take it seriously if I knew my integrity was intact.The cream alway's has a way of rising to the top through the mud.

[the stranger]

Wanna know what I do want? Ease of use. Can you bulk subscribe to each musicplayer publication. Like a bundle, ya know? I could get like buy 3 get one free. Or just get the complete set. The ten year plan. Let me subscribe to all the musicplayer mags at once. Seriously. No, I'm not kidding. I know I'm always kidding around and stuff, but I'm serious. I may be a little tight to go with the ten year plan thing. But I would like to be able to do like a two year deal that gets me all the musicplayer mags. Why? I love to read audio mags. I'm not picky. It's all good. :D

[Anifa]

I just sort of skimmed through the other thread to see who was aggravating and what the basics of conversation were. I, too, have never witnessed Craig this upset. I've been hanging out since 2000, registered as Willow, although my current identification shows 2002 as Ani`Fa once I actually began interacting with folks. I can honestly say that I've never read an article written by Craig that was influenced by anything other than his personal opinion and level of experience. He will offer pro's AND con's on products, and has a knack for detailing in on the how-to features that bring the best out of items is incredible. I noticed a while back that someone else, not to mention names, was hammering on Craig's uniqueness that makes his credibility SOUND and substantial. I will say this much, "It's just jealousy because some of the other guys WISH they could hold a candle for Craig to walk by." Rather than tear the guy down for his expert ability, why don't some folks study what it is that makes him the man, the celebrity speaker, and author that he is; then strive to better themselves by learning from a leader. Craig, It's good to see you're human too! Now I don't feel so incredibly bad for some my occasional rants :D When someone steps on our toes, it's only natural to say OUCH!!!

[Valkyrie Sound]

Ah hell.... I haven't been reading these EQ related threads... and I usually do because "I" care... I think I saw awhile ago that they were turning down the same road as the political threads... just rude arguments without a lot of facts. I'm personally getting tired of the old habit some people have... the "I must be a rude ass in order to be considered honest about anything" attitude. There are plenty of ways to express an opinion and you can express anything to anyone without being rude. Unfortunately, some people seem to think they will have more credibility if they are completely tactless. Too many subjects on these boards are going this way.... full of people with such weak argumentative skills that they resort to the "I'm not constrained by basic social skills... therefore I must be MORE honest than the other guy" attitude. All I can say to that is: "grow up". While I've offered CONSTRUCTIVE comments to EQ about their magazine in the past I've always avoided the "review" conspiracy discussions. Basically, I know the conspiracy theory is crap. (There, ya see? I was open about my feelings with no real info to back me up on the "crap" comment. Gee... don't I seem so much more "honest and no BS" than the other guy now?) I can say "Craig and EQ friends... don't me mad/frustrated" but I know it won't work. I know that won't work because they CARE about what they're doing at EQ. I have PROOF that they care.... read these EQ related threads... see Craig and friends try to explain their work and get pissed when people are rude. That's the true mark of someone that DOES care. One thing I've learned in my life... if someone DOES care and love what they're doing the likelihood of that person allowing any aspect of dishonesty into their work is next to nothing. Craig and Mitch... you know I love ya guys. I'd suggest just stop replying to this type of madness.... but I know it's hard because you care. I hope to see you both at AES. I think I need a break from these forums... Valky

[Gus Lozada]

I wish some of us might notice that these are Music Player / United Entertainment Media forums. That means, provided BY EQ, Keyboard, Bass Player, Guitar Player, Pro Sound News and other fine magazines from UEM. That does not mean we all have to agree or pretend our magazines are "perfect". However we expect some -or the most- of you to actually read the magazines and keep the business going in order we can keep discussing -and bashing- about our magazines and their content. It seems not a lot of people is aware of this. As Craig has already pointed out, we're not in war with any other publication; we work together as an industry and every single magazine knows its target audience. Wanna criticize? I guess the most of us -being musicians- know that a constructive critic works better than a destructive one. Don't we? Keep Contributing and help us to keep our magazines in a continuous improvement cycle.

[Brittanylips]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]Well, I'm about 20% mad, and 80% frustrated. Yes, we all do work hard at EQ. Sometimes it comes pretty close to all-consuming. But I neither expect nor want people to look favorably upon the magazine because we work hard, that should have nothing to do with it. I just want people to look at the content with an open mind and if they like it, THEN look favorably on the magazine. If they don't like it, that's fine; as I said, different magazines serve different audiences. I just don't understand the motivation behind some people being so willing to parade their ignorance in front of others. [/b][/quote]Frankly, I'm not sure why you're that mad. I don't think the thread insulted or threatened anything EQ. Were you bothered by what I wrote: "Sound On Sound uses four paragraphs to say what could easily be said in 1, and the editor seems to have his nose just a tad far up the manufacturer's bums." If you take away the fact that you know Paul personally, how is this worse than what people say all the time here about all sorts of public figures? [b]But to come here and say matter-of-factly that Paul White, who has NOTHING to do professionaliy with EQ, is a sellout just reeks of a total lack of courtesy. If you're so certain he's such a devious guy, why not go on the SOS web site and cite examples for all to see? Why do some of these people go into temporary paralysis when asked to provide any kind of substantiation -- no matter how tenuous -- to back up their claims?[/b] People talk about public people who have nothing to do with EQ in this forum all the time. Neither Mozart nor Bush write for EQ, but have taken all kinds of heat here in recent days. To substantiate: my comment is based on noticing that when he says he owns a piece of equipment (for which he pays, at most, accomodation prices with respect to industry practice), his subsequent reviews of equipment made by the same manufacturer tend to be overwhelmingly positive. For examples, ATC and Drawmer. In fact, the Drawmer website is a veritable portfolio of his reviews. Only My Opinion -- YMMV -- noses and bums -- wouldn't have made the comment had I known you would have been so bothered by it If you were dissing someone else, then I apololgize for the misunderstanding. -Peace, Love, and Brittanylips

[Anderton]

<> What has really ticked me off is the (G) EQ thread where one poster has repeated time and time again about how Mitch writes too many reviews (he used the figure 4 out of 6). So I went to the trouble to post a list of who wrote what reviews for the last few months. Apparently that wasn't good enough, so I posted the number of reviews Mitch wrote out of the totals for November 2002 - May 2003. This same person INSISTS that there is a major quid pro quo with manufacturers, that we respond to pressure, blah blah. He then went on to talk about Steve O's editorial in EM which basically said "Manufacturers sometimes pressure us but we resist." Well that's what I've been saying! So couple that with various other comments that have been made over time, and frankly, I'm just tired of being asked "When did you stop beating your wife?" I try to be a model of patience here, but y'know, sometimes I just get fed up. It happens. <> I don't take away the fact that I know Paul personally. It's an unsubstantiated comment about a friend, so it upsets me more. And since he wasn't here to defend himself, Dave and I did. <> True. But I don't know either one personally and therefore cannot comment on whether Bush is a genius, the devil, misguided, whatever. Your guess is as good as mine. <> Well, does it really seem so strange that if someone likes a piece of gear enough to buy it, then maybe, just maybe, they think highly of the gear and the company that makes it? And therefore get additional gear from that same company? If as you claim accommodation prices are an industry-wide practice -- which by and large, it is -- then Paul has the opportunity to buy whatever he wants. No one holds a gun up to my head about what I should purchase to equip my studio, and I'm sure the same is true with Paul. HE LIKES DRAWMER GEAR. He's not the only one. I like Paul Reed Smith guitars. I'm not the only one there either. I truly believe that if Drawmer put out a piece of crap, Paul would neither buy it nor give it a favorable review. That to me is the salient point. << Only My Opinion -- YMMV -- noses and bums -- wouldn't have made the comment had I known you would have been so bothered by it>> Well, it just happened to be about someone who I know takes all this stuff very seriously and puts forth maximum effort, so yeah, I got upset. Perhaps it was an overreaction but there are a few things that push my buttons and accusing good people of doing bad things is one of them. <> It's mostly Ernest's comments that drive me up the wall. I mean, he's entitled to his opinion, and I realize now that nothing's going to change it -- he'll always believe that we're writing reviews for the benefit of manufacturers, not readers. So be it. The problem is that there are many instances where this DOES happen in various industries, so it's easy to paint everyone in publishing with a broad stroke. But I think you'll find that the truly successful magazines are the ones who work to maintain credibility, because without it, you don't have readers...and without readers, you don't have advertisers. The conspiracy theorists fail to recognize that: we HAVE to serve the readers if we want to survive long-term. BTW your comments are generally on the mark, perceptive, and well-balanced so I must also admit to being disappointed that you strayed from your usual straight and narrow path . No damage done. Well, I gotta go, there's some company on the phone and I need to have them tell me how to write my review. :)

[boosh]

I like you Mr.Anderton. I never read magazines but your posts are great!

[Wrave]

Craig and all, let's face it, musicians tend to be a bit different. OK, weird. And some of us are pretty far gone. When I first found the MP forums I had posted a question and Earnest came back with a caustic remark. It almost caused me to abandon the forums but since that time I've met so many talented, humorous and knowledgable folks that the trolls and spammers and "bad apples" just don't get much of my attention. You know, "consider the source and ignore it". But, it seems like you in particular Mr. Anderton have been targeted. Out on the internet there are so many different personality types that we're bound to run into agitators who get some kind of warped kick when their bad manners finally do get to someone and they're able to start some discord. I have been a subscriber to MP mags and just recently continued my subs for another year. Critics are a dime a dozen. Don't worry about them.

[ernest828]

I must admit, I had no idea that the thread I started "The New (G) EQ" would have such an effect on this forum. The fact that Craig is so frustrated by this makes me feel sad. I do not know you Craig but I think you are a very good person and I think your writing and books are tremendous. You are correct that my opinions will not change, I have not experienced the industry the way you have. We each have our own experieces, we can agree on that I`m sure. It was not my intention to frustrate you or get you so riled up over this thread that I was hoping would be valuable feedback on the new direction of EQ. Honestly I don`t care what people think of me online, most of us will never meet to find out how truly beautiful most of us are (even though many here will agree that I am capable of such a thing). Anyway, thats all I have to say. I was speaking from experience and obviously my opinion goes against many. I apologize for saddening/frustrating you and I truly do appreciate your work. Peace, Ernest

[Anderton]

...and I still like the CD you sent me. So there! I DO appreciate the feedback, even if I think it's misguided. It all goes into the "Feedback Pool" and we pay attention. Putting out a magazine may seem simple, but it's a daunting, drainin, and often thankless task that repeats every 30 days or so...just when you're done with one, it's time to do another. There is never a day off. There is always the fear when doing a review that you missed something major, that a piece of artwork got swapped, that you missed a typo on the Quark proofs, that you'll wrap up the review on version 5.0 and a week later either a) version 6.0 is released or b) the company goes under...you get the idea. I don't ask for sympathy, no one's holding a gun to my head and making me do this. Same with Mitch, Greg, and John. We do it because we love what we do and the people with whom we work. But it's frustrating to work this hard to be fair, balanced, and objective, and then have people (not just Ernest) say "Oh yeah, all those guys are on the take, you can't believe anything you read in magazines." I can't speak for any other publications, but you CAN believe what you read in EQ. We each stand by every word we write in the magazine, and if anyone has problems with those words, or believes they are misinformed or not factual, we are the first to print a correction.

[bassix]

Out of all the pro audio related forums this one is the coolest place. Let's keep it that way. In other website forums I've seen people really slag eachother or others or even gear off on a daily basis (for example the utterly useles peetee vs. tron battles over at roger nichols'). People might want to concider this little remark before even replying to (unbacked) slag: [img]http://stats.foreverchat.net/arguing.jpg[/img] Just my 2 cents. Keep up the good work Craig. It's much appreciated.

[Stephen Fortner]

Originally posted by Gus: [quote] I wish some of us might notice that these are Music Player / United Entertainment Media forums. That means, provided BY EQ, Keyboard, Bass Player, Guitar Player, Pro Sound News and other fine magazines from UEM. [/quote]I just have to throw in that, in addition, UEM, as far as I know, doesn't make a dime directly off these forums. They're free to the user, too. Sometimes I think they've been around just long enough that we're beginning to take them for granted, which would be a shame. There are some similar places on the net, and believe be, the moderators here are among the most tolerant. In fact, I know of no other context in business, the media, etc, online. offline, or line dancing, where one could dress down a Craig Anderton to have the chief consequence be that he responds to the criticisms in a thoughtful and factually supported way.

[offramp]

Y'know, I go away for the weekend, up in the mountains and away from computers, and all this shit breaks loose. From skimming the board, here, I deduce: Someone with far too much time on their hands and a gigantic chip on their shoulder could not find anything more important in life to do than to take Craig to task for his work. Am I correct?

[Bunny Knutson]

[quote]Originally posted by offramp: [b]Someone with far too much time on their hands and a gigantic chip on their shoulder could not find anything more important in life to do than to take Craig to task for his work. Am I correct?[/b][/quote]Essentially, yes. Ironically, it's the same person who, just weeks ago, called Tedster a "loser" for spending too much time in this forum. Heheh.

[ernest828]

Offramp, What can I tell you? If you want to equate difference of opinion with Chip on ones shoulder... fine. Maybe thats why my back hurts? "But it's frustrating to work this hard to be fair, balanced, and objective, and then have people (not just Ernest) say "Oh yeah, all those guys are on the take, you can't believe anything you read in magazines." Craig, I never said you guys were on the take, I did say that reviewers have to re-word their thoughts on a piece of gear at times just so not to insult a company and therefore have them pull their ads from a publication. I never implied that you or anyone else directly took money from any manufacturer. I know there are times when a piece is reviewed and the piece is so bad that the manufacturer will take back the unit and fix it just so not to get a bad review. This is fair and balanced. This is not a bad practice either but lets just go back to when Behringer was ripping off the Mackie boards. No one came out and said what was really on their minds except Mackie and we all know what happened there. This is a dead end. Again, I appreciate your knowledge and I still enjoy EQ, not as much as I use to. IMO, its going the Home and Studio route (back around `99). I`m glad Recording is returning back to what it was. May EQ be even more successful! Ernest

[techristian]

Craig I remember that some time ago that you told us that this open forum was like inviting musicians and music producers to YOUR PARTY. They could talk about anything but usually as musicians and producers things would gravitate in the direction of production techniques etc. Well Craig, if I had invited 100 or so guests to my house and one individual kept yelling out loud over and over "Dan your drumming stinks." I may try and argue the issue with him/her for a while , but if he/she kept it up and wouldn't listen to reason...I'D THROW HIM/HER OUT ! As I said in another post Craig, I owe much of my music technology knowledge to you, as your articles of the past 20+ years have taught me most of what I know today. Dan http://musicinit.com/pvideos.html

[ernest828]

Well because of the fact that words are being put into my mouth by many of you (I won`t name) I went back and checked all my posts and now will quote myself word for word. I have no desire to continue all this non sense, especially after I am being misquoted. Who knows what you`ll make up now? "Unfortunatley reviewers are pressured into being kind, after all its the advertisers keeping their publications on the stands." "We will agree to dissagree about reviewers always finding something nice to say about a piece of gear... we all know the truth and admitting it here could be costly..." "I used to write for a magazine and I was the live music reviewer. Often times I would comment on the poor acoustics of a venue and the editor would ask me to change my comments for fear that the venue would stop advertising in the mag. Maybe down under you don`t feel the pressure of the mega corps, but it does exist and I have no doubt that EQ reviewers are toned down at times." "I refuse to believe otherwise so don`t insult my intelligence with your arguments. Sometimes you have to read between the lines to get some truth. When it comes to reviews, again, everything is perspective. There are many pieces of gear I wouldn`t touch that EQ reviews. Not necessarily because its bad but its not great." "Many reviews are too generous in my opinion again." So go ahead and put words in my mouth again. I challenge ALL of you to find the exact place I said Criag or anyone else was on the "TAKE". Ernest

[nursers]

[quote]Originally posted by ernest828@aol.com: [b]Well because of the fact that words are being put into my mouth by many of you (I won`t name) I went back and checked all my posts and now will quote myself word for word. I have no desire to continue all this non sense, especially after I am being misquoted. Who knows what you`ll make up now?[/b] For someone that has said a number of times they won't waste anymore time on this argument, you sure are wasting a lot of time [b]"Unfortunatley reviewers are pressured into being kind, after all its the advertisers keeping their publications on the stands."[/b] Please provide proof that reviewers are pressured [b]"We will agree to dissagree about reviewers always finding something nice to say about a piece of gear... we all know the truth and admitting it here could be costly..."[/b] Please provide proof that you know the truth and why it would be costly to admit [b]"I used to write for a magazine and I was the live music reviewer. Often times I would comment on the poor acoustics of a venue and the editor would ask me to change my comments for fear that the venue would stop advertising in the mag. Maybe down under you don`t feel the pressure of the mega corps, but it does exist and I have no doubt that EQ reviewers are toned down at times."[/b] Please provide proof that EQ reviews are toned down. [b]"I refuse to believe otherwise so don`t insult my intelligence with your arguments. Sometimes you have to read between the lines to get some truth.[/b] There's a statement from someone willing to look at opposing viewpoints :rolleyes: [b] So go ahead and put words in my mouth again. I challenge ALL of you to find the exact place I said Criag or anyone else was on the "TAKE". Ernest[/b][/quote]That's one of the oldest and feeblest methods of debate ernest: disagree with a general assertion by claiming you didn't say such a thing and wanting people to find the quote. If you want to be that concrete, then please answer the questions I asked above, which are based on your own quotes. Either you apply the same standard to yourself or you admit that no-one was ever claiming you specifically said Craig was on the take, but that we were paraphrasing your general argument.

[Wewus432]

ernest has a real PR problem. He has at one time insulted almost everyone on this forum. So now we're supposed to cut him some slack, and just stick to the issues. Yeah.........right. The fact is he doesn't usually stick to the issues very long himself, before resorting to personal attacks. The title of that thread, just made me laugh-The Burden Of Proof. Where the frick are we? Some kind of court to determine the future of EQ? It's just rude as hell to rag on your host like that. He might, and I emphasize might, even have a valid point, but who gives a damn, if it's coming from ernest? He has 0 credibility in my book. If he has issues that big with the way EQ is run, and really cares about it that much, it would be advisable to bring it up in a less public way.

[Mats Nermark]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [QB Putting out a magazine may seem simple, but it's a daunting, drainin, and often thankless task that repeats every 30 days or so....[/QB][/quote]Craig, You have my understanding and support!! Although not on the same level of neither expertise nor experience as that of the esteemed Mr Anderton, I also write for a magazine. In my case a much smaller publication called FUZZ. This is the only guitar mag in Scandianavia and it's office is in Gothenburg. I am also saddened everytime I read in a Internet forum about writers being on the take from suppliers/distributors. That we are always soft on stuff and never publish any negative tests, etc. I get even more upset when a distributor calls and tries to get me to change or omit what I consider an important point. I have never ever done that. When they have a valid point I will of course consider it. Especially if I have misunderstood or missed something. Then I will change. I spend a lot of my time trying to explain to people in Sweden how the reality is. Then it happens again and again. What I wonder is why it is so hard to understand that we writers/journalist need our [b]integrity[/b] to survive in this business. My credibility is the most important thing in my professional life. If I lose that I will lose everything. Therefore I can not afford to to compromise even a tiny little bit. But I'm also a musician and studio owner. I really love good stuff. I also review and buy the good stuff I review. Is that a problem for me? Not at all. I'm just like my readers. I find somthing good - I buy it. Does this affect my independence or credibility? Not at all. I would say the oppostite. I actually work with the kind of gear I try under professional circumstances where some products don't work out. This gets mentioned in reviews also. Then on to the "Why do you only have positive reviews?" issue. In our case it's quite simple as FUZZ is a bit smaller magazine than GuitarPlayer and most US mags. There are so many products available for reviewing. So many that we can only cover maybe 25% of them in FUZZ. Our decision then is to cover the most exciting products out there. The best stuff we can find. Who decides what products to review. Ususally the reviewers. This way we all cover our individual areas of interest/expertise and if we find a product to be of interest to us the chances are that we actually will like it as musicians/technicians. Therefore it is quite easy to understand that when we do try it and write about it it be a positive test. I think there is a human mission in finding and writing about good stuff as there is so much bad stuff in the world. Some pople would counter this argument by saying that it is the duty of magazines to uncover the bad stuff for the unsuspecting public. To this I say that this way of reasoning is an insult to the collective intellect of our readers. They can see the difference between a gold egg and a turd. If you still think magas should write about the bad stuff then just go about it the other way around. Be suspicious of the stuff we do not review. That should give you a hint. Bets regards, Mats Nermark Technical Editor FUZZ Magazine Sweden

[ernest828]

Nursers- My proof is from experience and friends in the know...names withheld. I`m shocked that Craig has never been asked to subdue some critiques. I don`t know any more than that so... Whatever the case, its wrong for people to put words in my mouth. Wewus-I guess I can be insulting at times when I get impatient with idiotic comments from forum members such as yourself. However, I make every attempt to keep the quality of my posts above most of the nonsense threads. Thats the reason I have little patience for nonsense threads such as some of yours and many of your posts. Thats an "attack on you" and I`m being judgemental too. I just don`t see the point in your input at times. Honestly. The (G) EQ thread was a sincere effort to give feedback to EQ which they asked for. As a reader of the mag for 10 years, I have valid points that are opposed by the moderator and unlike many on this board who are afraid to get a bad rep. they will go along with the powers that be. As always, you have a choice whether or not you want to read my threads. I have opted in the past months, not to go near your posts. So continue on with your badgering...wlecome to the tribe. Ernest

[Anderton]

<> There are ads that are sold, but they do not even come close to offsetting the costs. UEM and the Music Gear Network people have been extremely patient and understanding that these forums need to survive. I sincerely hope that soon, they no longer represent a drain on the company. As to Ernest, look, it's okay. And he's right that he never said that we're on the take from manufacturers, he was talking more about being pressured and changing words to please manufacturers. However, other people have said both, so I was sort of lumping all the "you can't believe what you read in magazines" together. Mats mirrors my experience. Perhaps the reason why I don't get pressured is because, well, I do have a certain status in this industry. Companies HAVE fixed products based on a negative review, which of course never saw print because they did the fixes. The fact is that companies desperately need people who can give objective opinions. It may hurt sometime, but they would rather deal with that then live in a fantasy world. I subscribe to the same philosophy with respect to feedback on the magazine. Of course we can't accommodate everyone's needs, but we do want to satisfy our core readership, bring in new readers, keep up the times, and not forget the past. As I've said so many times, it's a balancing act. So...let's turn down the volume on the personal attacks. People have opinions. Hopefully being presented with facts will change those opinions, but sometimes they won't. Ernest still can't believe I don't get pressured to modify reviews to make manufacturers happy because of experiences he's had elsewhere, and I'm not going to continue to try and convince him otherwise. The only exception is what Mats noted -- sometimes we'll miss something and the manufacturer has a right to critique our work, as we have the right to critique theirs. Our ultimate responsibility is to the reader, and sometimes that means accepting the manufacturer is right about something, and sometimes it means pointing out that they're wrong. BTW I just finished looking through the September issue of EQ and all the reviews were pretty positive. As Mats said, this is one of the benefits of choosing the products we get to review :)

[DRi]

[quote]Originally posted by bassix: [QB] [img]http://stats.foreverchat.net/arguing.jpg[/img] [QB][/quote]that kid is awesome. i wonder if he won, he seems pretty happy. not like the jaded MF's we get on here time to time :p

[Wow]

I'M RETARTED . :confused:

[Guruman]

who said you won? :)

[Wow]

uh..............................I did. :)