[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by drc

A question is can a critique more reliable than the source? If you don't trust the author, how can you trust what is written?

Bias, misinformation and propaganda doesn't always mean that the individual information is incorrect, but that often correct information is cherry picked to meet an agenda or pre-determined outcome. In these critiques, threre is no doubt that the conclusion was picked first, then the data was gathered to support it. Don't just ask what was included in the report, but what was excluded and why.

That's why I think following critiques with predetermined conclusions written by authors with questionable ethics is at best a dubious exercise. Whether or not the individual tidbits of information are accurate, the whole exercise is unreliable, because of the authors' biases the size of Lake Michigan.

If these types of sites and essays and critiques are important for the hobby-- and they probably should--, they should be being written by entirely different people. For example, people who are not writing them to get back at companies these have vendettas against and/or as methods to subvert competition for the author's own company.

Outstanding post David!