Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: Ya know....

Posted by bwaslo on May 31, 2016 at 21:31:04:
"They simply didn't know who to believe and chose the manufacturer, who was making a rather large fuss and denying any wrongdoing."
Sue, I'm trying to imagine what possible motive a reviewer could have for making a report like this were it not true? Certainly not to get a freebie set of speakers (no mfr, same one or other, will ever make an offer to that reviewer like that again after the report becomes known). Under bribe from a different manufacturer? Hard to imagine, too complicated. Brownie Points to the reviewer? People who report bad smells seldom get Brownie Points for it.
So why did the editors choose to believe the manufacturer? Any idea?