![]() |
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
Register / Login
|
In Reply to: Re: Personality Disorder posted by Dr. S on March 16, 2007 at 17:34:47:
"Now, you get to do something to show if you are just another nattering nabob, or if you are serious about your point."That was you in reply to a post of mine which contained no demands, no name calling. What'd you expect in response, a verbal rose with a thankyou note? Think spending time attempting to prove to the great Dr. S that I'm not a "nattering nabob" is a high priority for me?! You're so full of self-importance that you are still making demands as if you are the arbiter of truth/sense/logic, and failing to convince you is proof of idiocy and cretinism. Put up or shutup? Wedge it where the sun don't shine.
No, I didn't post my original suggestion -- which your editor obviously thought had merit and quickly implimented at PF in an even simpler form -- to get into "a stand up fight". The reasons why I think differentiation of owned/loan is helpful were explained in the link and in several other posts.
Loaners? Actually I'd be happy to just see a list of the equipment a reviewer chose to purchase. I'd just assume anything/everything else mentioned in a review was a loaner. I didn't ask for any detailed explanations for the buying choices a reviewer makes, though that'd be informative. If I don't already know, from continued reading of a reviewer hopefully I'll get some idea of things like: what dimensions the reviewer's room has & what's in it; taste in music; listening volume preference; preferences regarding soundstaging, frequency extremes etc. Do you think concepts that may have entered your buying decisions like -- "I need varied equipment to provide synergistic couplings with varied DUR's", "Reviewers need neutral components/spkrs. to properly assess DUR's" -- are beyond the grasp of your readers?
Some reviewers -- and I'm now thinking you may be one of them -- seem to think their idea of "accurate", "neutral", "overly lush", "transient speed", "bloated", "bloom" etc. are universal definitions. The reality is that readers have to get to know a reviewer's perception as it relates to their own, then translate the review. Knowing what a reviewer spent their own $$ on is one of several clues which can aid the translation.
There is nothing else I have to say that'll change your mind. Somehow I'll muddle through life knowing I may not have successfully proved to you that your lame-ass Agnewesque and CJ-ian insults were unwarranted. The last word is all yours.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- If the shoe fits...... - Rick W 21:11:35 03/16/07 (2)
- Re: Oh, I think your eloquence more clearly states my point, even than I could ... (nt) - Dr. S 13:43:57 03/17/07 (0)
- Well, "nabobs" aside... - robert young 07:44:35 03/17/07 (1)