Simple. When you interact with me on this topic, you make that front and center. You know who I am front and center. I had no idea who you were and read that as a pure reader of reviews.
So you haven't paid attention to the many times I've mentioned it. And that's MY fault?
And in this VERY thread I mention it, TWICE, and you even quote it...and then STILL accuse me of wanting to HIDE the fact?
Why would I mention it in this very thread you are participating in, if my intention was to HIDE that I ever reviewed speakers, from you or anyone else?
Your attempt to paint me as hiding this information is not only wrong, shown by all the times I've mentioned it; it seems incoherent.
Nothing about the tone of your responses owned up to this. It was quite a surprise to read that you had such a history.
Ok, you never paid attention to it, or never read any of my posts describing it. But quit trying to cast that as MY FAULT. And casting me as dishonest.
I would address you very differently knowing what I know now. I would have probed you as a subjective reviewer, just as you probe me as who I am here.
How exactly would your arguments change from the ways you have already challenged my arguments?
I can not think of one intellectually honest way in which it would change anything.
Why? Because the arguments, yours and mine, fall on whether they are good or not. Not on whether I reviewed a few speakers 20 years ago.
Thus the only way it would change is if you added in some misdirection/ad hominem, like "this can be dismissed BECAUSE you reviewed some speakers once."
But, if I'm wrong about that, I'd like to see how this Startling New Knowledge changes your or my arguments.
You may have different ethical standards as I.
At this point I might be led to agree, given how I'm being unjustly accused of deliberately "hiding" things from people that I clearly did not hide.
(Note that you have moved the goal posts as well, earlier saying why didn't you tell "us"...which of course I had...now it's "why didn't you repeat it explicitly in your first post to me?"...)
Mine says you say front and center who you are. That is why I put what I put in my signature.
So I should have put in my signature "reviewed a handful of speakers 20 years ago?"
As if that would change whether my arguments are sound or not?
This is why the second sentence in ever review says where I got the product under test. This is why there is a prominent notice at the top of the review if there is remotely a conflict of interest.
Yes. I'm aware you run a web site, and produce reviews.
I don't. Nor have I been affiliated with any for many years. I have not pushed for anyone to buy anything that I ever reviewed way-back-when or otherwise. Nor would I even entirely defend the site that I briefly reviewed for, which also produces some of the types of reviews I would disparage. All of which is perfectly consistent with how I have represented myself on this website.
You seem to think that in a topic where we are discussing subjective reviewers, the fact that you were one is just "oh by the way." It is not. It is the very topic of the thread and I would have expected you to make that clear in the first response to me and repeated in later responses.
If you think this reaction is "disgusting," it is nothing of what I think of your conduct in this regard. I suggest moving on and getting someone who doesn't mind such lapses in transparency and ethical conduct.
This thread was about the arguments made by Doug Schneider in the original video, concerning "Measurements Before Listening" and "Hi-Fi Measurements Do Matter." It's right on the front page. It gradually morphed in to including a wider discussion of the worth of subjective reviews, at which point I gave my own viewpoint. I argued for the relevance of *some* reviews, and then discussed a review you were disparaging by Herb. He seemed to identify a coloration that showed up in the measurements. You wouldn't acknowledging that, arguing as if Herb's use of those subjective descriptions were illegitimate...and when I showed that YOU indulge in just the same type of subjective descriptions that could be critiqued on the same grounds, you ignored it and now pivot to finding a way to paint me as dishonest, rather than addressing the content of my arguments.
Then when the accusation that my motivation was to hide that I once reviewed speakers is shown to be b.s it's just more doubling down trying to paint me as having been dishonest.
Now you are pointing to my first reply to you as if the absence of me starting with
"I reviewed a few speakers 20 years ago" was because THAT WAS SOMETHING I SEEK TO HIDE. When it has been shown I have not hidden that fact, have ZERO problem with anyone knowing it, have zero problem mentioning it wherever it seems relevant to me, INCLUDING IN THIS THREAD.
I don't talk "as a reviewer" because I am not a reviewer. Haven't been one for 20 years.
I tend to mention it more when the purported dishonesty of subjective reviewers comes up, and then my experience of the reviewing milieu seems to be of some bit of relevance. But since most of my time before that was just reading reviews, and for the last 20 years has been simply as a regular audio consumer discussing this stuff on audio forums or reading reviews and auditioning gear, that tends to be my reference point.
Also, it starts to feel egotistical to me, to argue from my old reviews. I did get some nice feedback from readers as to how my descriptions matched what they heard too, but since that's more old news I try not to make too much hay of it, and reference more of what I have gotten from other reviewers.
Given most of the arguments I have presented
do not depend on my reviewing anything for their relevance or soundness, I don't seek to just cram "I once reviewed a few speakers" in to the posts. But I have never "Hidden" anything. And frankly your responses have suggested it was a bad idea to have no problem mentioning having been a reviewer briefly, since it will be apparently seized upon to disparage my character, rather than addressing points I made against your argument, or the soundness of my arguments.
Time to move on.
(I hope to see no more attempts to paint me as being dishonest, thanks).