I can accept that but if you can show me proof of that I'd retract position and apologize to everyone here for my ignorance.
Not so much ignorance, more likely it is nothing more than a common lack of logic. And knowledge of the subject.
You hold yourself up as something special, above corrupt reviewers, above what you call the whole corrupt process of reviewing. For proof you give some examples of reviewers always writing positive reviews. Then for more proof you say look at me, I am happy to trash all kinds of stuff. I'm from NYC!
What a strained, limited and small view of the world you have. Not to mention, illogical. The fact the vast majority of reviews are positive is not proof of corruption. It could just as well be what noromance said, only the good stuff makes it past the selection process.
That is certainly true in my case. Why would I want to waste my precious time on anything unless I was already quite certain it will be good? Frankly, the last person I want to read a review from is someone incapable of selecting the very best to review in the first place! If you write a review trashing anything you are trashing your own rep equally as bad.
But enough of the lack of logic. What about lack of knowledge? You seem to think reviewing comes down to good or bad, yea or nay, cheer or trash. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If you want to be a good reviewer then you need to know the most valuable asset a reviewer can have is the ability to accurately and thoroughly describe whatever it is. In order to do this credibly it helps to know as much as you can about the review conditions. This includes the reviewers system, but also his experience and background and even frame of mind. We try and glean as much of this as we can from the review.
Why this matters is if you are writing a review, well then who is it for? You don't know! You can write it for whoever you imagine, but you have no control over who in fact is interested enough to read it. So you need to think about your audience. This can be anyone from neophyte beginner to advanced audiophile. If you like to use phrases like sipping cognac on their high horses maybe you imagine your audience to be vapid cliche lovers. I don't know. But you want to write reviews, you might want to think about that.
Something to consider in writing reviews, just my point of view doesn't have to be yours, but the whole point of a really good component is to do as little damage as possible to the signal. This means then that the best components do the least damage. Logically then this also means the better the component, the more it lets you hear both the recording as well as all the other components.
Therefore, logically, maybe what you like about Klipsch is it covers up your other component choice mistakes. Maybe Double Impacts are more truth than you can handle. Not saying that is the case. Just saying a good reviewer would have considered this.
So anyway, no apologies, no retractions. Introspection, that'll do.