Is the Berning ZH270 revalatory?

In the truest definition of the term "troll" I expect that Mew could be considered one but in the context of trolling for responses from other users. So by that definition, trolling isn't always a bad thing, is it? I have posted several "trolls" myself for similar affirmations, nothing wrong with that me thinks. The lesson learned here might be that it is best to get the facts of a concern by doing it quietly (a personal e-mail to Mew or Allan maybe?) rather than yelling fire before the smoke is evident.

Zaikesman, I generally hold your opinions in very high regard for both your forthrightness and content but I expect you assumed too much too soon in this case. If I were in the position of Allan Bhagan I would be more than a bit offended.

I ordinarily wouldn't comment any further on this matter but it isn't the first time I've seen exactly the same thing happen to a dealer unjustifiably. While there wasn't a direct accusation there was very strong inuendo that this thread was initiated to promote the amp to the benefit of the dealer. We are all interested in maintaining a site where the users are not being snowed by a bunch of self serving dealers Zaikesman. I think Audiogon and the members have by and large done a very good job of maintaining this site away from that end. In kind, we must do are part to be responsible before making remarks that could tarnish the reputation of folks that make a living from our hobby.

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.]

Zaikesman, I have been at audiogon since it's conception, The only reason that this thread did not turn into a feeding frenzy of paranoid thread bashers, were due to both reputation of product and self.

Your concerns are justified, however your method of identifying and implication are flawed, I am afraid to say that there are many shills but their sophistication is at this time, beyond normal recognition.

The results are simple, You will only alienate the truthful and honest, as they have the most to lose, all you will end up with is the liars, cheats and Shills, as they will have the time to learn to deceive.

That said, I do understand very well the situation in audio today, buyer beware, readers,.. grain of salt, this is however what some want, a murky confused situation to thrive in, when you attack honest people with honest products you simply make the waters murkier.

And if I may add, your continued reasoning for justify what you did is again silly, not only are you trying to stop free speech but you are trying to make it into what you want to perceive as right, a dangerous thing and the complete wording of your responses might just be unconstitutional.

I am afraid it's better to have shills now than to continue attacking the innocent, as you want to protect audiogon viewers from Shills, is as I now want to protect the innocent that has been and will be attacked.

In your own words
"(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"

This is like saying, tie their hands and feet, throw them into the lake, if they drown and go to the bottom they were not witches.

There is no provision in free society to attack the innocent to weed out the guilty.

I suppose our approach is different Zaikesman. “Could be” raises a question in ones mind and obviously it did in yours and maybe others as well. Everyone that makes a living through sales or peddling of a product or service attempts to influence in the direction they want us to go, whether it be lobbyists giving sums of money to political campaigns for future favors or at the very least future considerations towards their interests or audio dealers to “Beta testers” for their respected opinion with if not expressed then certainly implied understanding that it will be favorable.

The issue at hand relative to this thread might be, How does one raise the question without sounding accusatory without any evidence? My whole point is that if there is a suspicion on your part or anyone for that matter, it should be explored behind the scenes before it is raised for all to see. Suspicion by many in our society is viewed as guilty until proven innocent which can be very difficult to overcome once it is associated with an individual, the examples are countless. In our little world it could spread like wildfire. My father drilled into from the time I was a young child that personal honor is the most important asset you have, don’t lose it. I say in turn that it is equally important to protect each other and gather facts as quietly as possible before raising a question for the public to see about the personal integrity and motivations of an individual. This is an important point to keep in mind and while I appreciate your coherent response I feel the essence of what I was attempting to point out in my last post was skirted over. The “process” of getting to the bottom of the issue, not the suspicion itself. True democracy, of by and for the people is a utopian ideal that can only be realized when people are truly equal and viewed by each other as such which is to say mutually respected.

Zaikesman you are being too hard on yourself in your quest for integrity. We can only be true to ourselves and let the chips fall where they will so long as we don't unduly step on anyone in the process. You should post the review based on your assessment of the product on its own merits. The fact that you received a discount is irrelevant so long as that doesn't interfere with your honest assessment of it on its own terms and there is no local dealer who is unaware of the arrangement.

You may want to keep in mind that retail price and wholesale are completely different. Since you purchased directly from the manufacturer often times you will get a substantial discount, 30-40% is not uncommon. I don't think anyone would hold it against you but the concensus of your positive review better be on your side :)