Tubegroover: I likewise respect your thoughts on this and other matters, and appreciate that you make the distinction between accusing without evidence, and raising a concerned question for clarification. IMO, an unbiased reading (meaning by those of us who don't own the company in question's products) of the original post (with its perhaps somewhat unintended tone of, This is the best thing I've ever heard! Could I be dreaming, or is this for real?), combined with the circumstances under which it was posted (by a contributor with no previous history), would almost have to lead one to wonder whether there *could be* an unstated agenda at work. In a couple of similar cases where I've posted more gingerly in the past, the thread-head never returned to respond, so now I just lay out my case in order that others may know what there is to be discovered - and maybe inferred - and draw their own conclusions. If the original poster does return and satisfactorily clarify, as is the case here, then there should be no further cause for suspicion. It's a bit like the idea behind campaign finance reform efforts: Even the mere *appearance* of simply the *possibility* for corruption to exist deriving from the undue influence of money - as opposed to hard evidence of *actual* corruption or a quid pro quo - can be equally harmful to the pursuit of a true democracy. But just as in that example, nothing can really be 'proven' one way or the other, so you have to take some things on faith and your good judgement, while remaining ever-vigilant.
[Just as a related aside on a personal note, I have now delayed for weeks posting a review of a product I fully intended to write an article about on this forum. A large part of the reason why is that I received a manufacturer's discount on the product - not to review the product positively per se (neither was it a formal 'accomodation price' - traditionally offered *after* a product has been positively reviewed - and of course I am not a formal 'pro' reviewer), but because I was making other purchases in conjunction with this one, and the product was so brand-new that I was the very first customer, in effect a beta-tester. But there *was* an understanding that I intended post a review, although that review - it was equally well-understood - could be positive, negative, or inconclusive: whatever I found to be the case. But now that I'm really down to it, and have a positive opinion of the product, I find I am too uncomfortable with the situation to post the review at all. Of course I could state in the review that I received XYZ discount, but that wouldn't really do anything to alleviate suspicion, and would probably create trouble for the manufacturer. As I see it at this point, all I can do is either withhold the review, or make up the difference to full retail price before posting. It is entirely possible that this dilemma of mine may make me extra-sensitive right now to any whiff of potentially unsavory boosterism that might cross my path.]
