Quote:
Originally Posted by mezzanine
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.
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. |
So, YOUR time is too valuable to bother supporting assertions you make, therefore those who read your comments should just believe you uncritically for no other reasons than because YOU say something is so?
"the substance of our disagreement" is very simple: You made an assertion, I asked for proof of its validity, you have explicitly refused to provide it.
I did not "suggest" that independent review organizations own the devices they test, I know that least least some of them do. I know this because I have read descriptions of their purchase process and pleas for funding from some of them,funding they seek in order to buy products for testing purposes. The fact that many of such organizations test items to the point of destruction is also possible only because they bought and paid for them. They buy them, they own them. Ownership, you insist, is an impediment to objectivity. So by your argument they cannot be objective about the products they review because they own them.