Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Robin
PLEASE do me the courtesy of reading what I write before replying to it.
I did not "dispute the established data", I asked you to provide it. You said "there's a ton of research" and "it's well-established" and provided exactly ZERO proof of the truth of those two assertions. Simply SAYING "there's a ton of research" and "it's well-established" is not actually proof.
I also did NOT "claim that ownership is an asst to objectivity" - in fact I explicitly conceded that it can be an impediment thereto. Finally, those organizations which do "independent tests" actually do OWN the models they test, at least of devices like ereaders, so according to your argument, they suffer the same impediment to objectivity
|
I do read, but people have a lot of trouble understanding the implications of their statements.
I'm not going to digging up citations of well-established research on an internet message board. My time is more valuable than that. You even go so far as to suggest you acknowledged it (you didn't), thereby conceding the point.
It says everything about your avoidance of the substance of our disagreement that you would suggest independent reviewers like Consumer Reports own the devices they review and are subject to the same degree of bias as people here who often derive self-esteem from their self-perceived "expertise" about e-readers.