this is just one of many posts where you are trying to put forth that you have technical chops
"The part I asked you to respond to was your statement that my "takeaway" after amplifier listening was contrary to audio (and psycho-acoustic) research. The points I re-iterated were quite sound, but I was interested in your counterpoint (as opposed to your talking points)."
Bizarre gasllighting again: you interpret a considered opinion to be a claim to a technical qualification?
But by your own admission, you are just legal/regulatory
Reading comprehension: I certainly didn’t say "just" I said "not accounting".
the comment I made w.r.t. to "gift" is tax law
Moving the goalposts: material consideration and any conflict of interest arising isn’t tax law, it’s transparency (which is important to regulatory and trade practice law).
they are already many steps above others from an optics stand point.
Whataboutism—"what about those other reviewers, hey?"—is a logical fallacy, obviously. ASR makes special claims to ethical behaviour, I’m recommending transparency to support those claims. Interpreting this as "an attack" is typical of the defensiveness from ASR that many here experience and commented on. As noted, the moderator who did this in the ASR thread apologised. That’s open to you here also.
the review that Amir provides ... is of far more value, monetarily, to the company that provides the product, so the concept of "gift" is questionable
I give you something, you give me something. Absolutely a material consideration. And as you describe it, now you are supporting the material consideration argument and suggesting a quid pro quo! You have no idea what you are saying, do you? 😂