magazine
 

If I wanted to read a coupla' issues of a
"what telly to buy" magazine, just to get
a feel for what's around, what I might like,
all that...

what magazine is worth buying?

It strikes me that 10-15 quid on magazines
might be a wise investment prior to
spending over 1000 GPB on a telly

BugBear

magazine
 

You want "Which?" magazine. No BS. I have never been disappointed by
their recommendations

They probably do a free trial.

bugbear wrote:
If I wanted to read a coupla' issues of a
"what telly to buy" magazine, just to get
a feel for what's around, what I might like,
all that...

what magazine is worth buying?

It strikes me that 10-15 quid on magazines
might be a wise investment prior to
spending over 1000 GPB on a telly

BugBear

magazine
 

You want "Which?" magazine. No BS. I have never been disappointed by
their recommendations

They probably do a free trial.

bugbear wrote:
If I wanted to read a coupla' issues of a
"what telly to buy" magazine, just to get
a feel for what's around, what I might like,
all that...

what magazine is worth buying?

It strikes me that 10-15 quid on magazines
might be a wise investment prior to
spending over 1000 GPB on a telly

BugBear

magazine
 

On 4 Jul 2006 15:44:41 -0700, wrote:

You want "Which?" magazine. No BS. I have never been disappointed by
their recommendations

Yeah, a magazine that does a roundup of PVR's, recommends the Humax,
and doesn't even review the far superior Topfield. Very useful.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

magazine
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
You want "Which?" magazine. No BS. I have never been disappointed by
their recommendations

They probably do a free trial.

Check it out at your local library.

--
Max Demian

magazine
 

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 4 Jul 2006 15:44:41 -0700, wrote:

You want "Which?" magazine. No BS. I have never been disappointed by
their recommendations

Yeah, a magazine that does a roundup of PVR's, recommends the Humax,
and doesn't even review the far superior Topfield. Very useful.

I don't think the Topfield is available in ordinary shops.

I haven't seen the latest Which?, but the last PVR report I saw slagged off
the Humax (albeit prior to the latest software releases) but recommended two
others that couldn't cope with recording consecutive programmes properly and
couldn't record two programmes at the same time even though they were dual
tuner.

--
Max Demian

magazine
 

magazine
 

On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 09:32:52 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

Hmm. I've always been most impressed with
their reviews of things I know nothing about.

Sadly, I've always found their reviews
of items I know about to be rubbish,
which makes me suspect that my
judgement of the other reviews.

Too true.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

magazine
 

In article ,
bugbear wrote:
wrote:
You want "Which?" magazine. No BS. I have never been disappointed by
their recommendations


Hmm. I've always been most impressed with their reviews of things I know
nothing about.

Sadly, I've always found their reviews of items I know about to be
rubbish, which makes me suspect that my judgement of the other reviews.

It was Which?, by saying that UK colour sets were rubbish, caused the
downfall of that industry. A factory in South Wales which was jointly owned
by a japanese firm and a UK one, couldn't sell enough with the japanese
badge, but virtually none with the the uk one. Before long, the japanese
firm bought out their uk partners (who no longer exist).

The Rover 2000 car was slated for poor performance and that got lots of
press coverage. Which? later admitted that when they did the 500 mile
service on the new car, they'd fitted the wrong sparking plugs - but how
many people discovered that?

I have lots of other examples - but I won't bore you.

--
From KT24 - in drought-ridden Surrey

Using a RISC OS5 computer

magazine
 

Max Demian wrote:

"Andrew" wrote in message
.. .
On 4 Jul 2006 15:44:41 -0700, wrote:

You want "Which?" magazine. No BS. I have never been disappointed by
their recommendations

Yeah, a magazine that does a roundup of PVR's, recommends the Humax,
and doesn't even review the far superior Topfield. Very useful.

I don't think the Topfield is available in ordinary shops.

It is now. From the Toppy.org.uk website:

Selected House of Fraser stores now stock the TF5800 ; presently the
list is Birmingham, Bristol, Camberley, Cardiff, Darlington, Gateshead
Metro Centre, Glasgow, Lakeside Thurrock, Leicester, London Oxford
Street, London Victoria, Manchester, Middlesborough, Plymouth, Reading
(The Oracle), Sheffield Meadowhall, and Beatties in Wolverhampton.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

magazine
 

bugbear wrote:
If I wanted to read a coupla' issues of a
"what telly to buy" magazine, just to get
a feel for what's around, what I might like,
all that...

what magazine is worth buying?

It strikes me that 10-15 quid on magazines
might be a wise investment prior to
spending over 1000 GPB on a telly

OK. So we've concluded (by majority vote)
that Which? isn't it.

Any other suggestions?

BugBear

magazine
 

bugbear wrote in
:


OK. So we've concluded (by majority vote)
that Which? isn't it.

Any other suggestions?

Sorry to say I think the glossy mags are equal rubbish; I've been led
expensively astray too many times.

I'm quite sure they're about as independent as politicians and paymasters,
I can only suggest you ask on usenet; but even then you have to factor in
the the background and prejudices of respondents.

But you'll have a better chance

mike

magazine
 

In article , Mike wrote:
OK. So we've concluded (by majority vote)
that Which? isn't it.

Any other suggestions?

Sorry to say I think the glossy mags are equal rubbish; I've been led
expensively astray too many times.

I'm quite sure they're about as independent as politicians and paymasters,
I can only suggest you ask on usenet; but even then you have to factor in
the the background and prejudices of respondents.

But you'll have a better chance

Seconded. I've found the same about Which? Magazine as the poster who said
reviews of familiar technology were so bad it made the other ones suspect,
and I wouldn't trust an "independent" review in a magazine that advertised
the product.

However, unbiased unedited opinions of real people who've actually bought and
used an item are much more informative. You have to expect a few nutters of
course, but they usually indicate clearly by the obsessive, inarticulate, or
downright offensive nature of their postings that their opinions are best
regarded as worthless, and can be disregarded.

A Google search for what you are considering buying, including the words
"user reviews" or "user comments" will probably give you more useful and
honest advice than you'd get from any magazine.

Rod.

magazine
 

In message , charles
writes
In article ,
bugbear wrote:
wrote:
You want "Which?" magazine. No BS. I have never been disappointed by
their recommendations


Hmm. I've always been most impressed with their reviews of things I know
nothing about.

Sadly, I've always found their reviews of items I know about to be
rubbish, which makes me suspect that my judgement of the other reviews.

It was Which?, by saying that UK colour sets were rubbish, caused the
downfall of that industry. A factory in South Wales which was jointly owned
by a japanese firm and a UK one, couldn't sell enough with the japanese
badge, but virtually none with the the uk one. Before long, the japanese
firm bought out their uk partners (who no longer exist).

The Rover 2000 car was slated for poor performance and that got lots of
press coverage. Which? later admitted that when they did the 500 mile
service on the new car, they'd fitted the wrong sparking plugs - but how
many people discovered that?

I have lots of other examples - but I won't bore you.


I bought one of these TV sets, based on glowing reports of excellent
quality and reliability (those made in Japan). I think I got one of the
first actually assembled in Wales. It had four faults in the first year.
Ian.
--

magazine
 

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
Yeah, a magazine that does a roundup of PVR's, recommends the Humax,
and doesn't even review the far superior Topfield. Very useful.

That's because it wasn't readily available. Perhaps things have changed
now.

--
*I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

magazine
 

In article ,
charles wrote:
It was Which?, by saying that UK colour sets were rubbish, caused the
downfall of that industry. A factory in South Wales which was jointly
owned by a japanese firm and a UK one, couldn't sell enough with the
japanese badge, but virtually none with the the uk one. Before long,
the japanese firm bought out their uk partners (who no longer exist).

Perhaps you'd tell us which UK set was the 'best'? I can certainly
remember those dreadful PIL sets when they first came out which weren't a
patch on my much older Philips.

The Rover 2000 car was slated for poor performance and that got lots of
press coverage. Which? later admitted that when they did the 500 mile
service on the new car, they'd fitted the wrong sparking plugs - but how
many people discovered that?

This would have been 1960 what?

I have lots of other examples - but I won't bore you.

It might be better if they were within living memory. ;-)

Which give guidance for the average punter - not the expert or hobbyist.
They will already read the specialist press - and of course agree with
every word. ;-)

I've bought near all the things I just want to do what they say on the box
and last well - like washing machines and hoovers, etc, on Which advice
and been happy. Not TV or Hi-Fi or cars. Those I care about, and decide on
for my particular requirements. Although Which owner reports on cars are
remarkably accurate IMHO as regards reliability and living with them.

--
*Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

magazine
 

On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:27:25 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

That's because it wasn't readily available. Perhaps things have changed
now.

If Which's research only goes as far as what is available in their
researchers local branch of Comet, then that is even more reason to
distrust them. So what if something (at the time) was only available
via the web? If it is a great product, they should still inform their
readers about it.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

magazine
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:
However, unbiased unedited opinions of real people who've actually bought and
used an item are much more informative. You have to expect a few nutters of
course, but they usually indicate clearly by the obsessive, inarticulate, or
downright offensive nature of their postings that their opinions are best
regarded as worthless, and can be disregarded.

There's a more general problem, even with sincere intelligent
people. Most people will have gone through some kind
of evaluation process prior to making a choice.

It is only natural to want your choice to (have been)
the right one, and thus there is a string tendancy
to rationolise what you've got, even if it doesn't match
your original hopes.


A Google search for what you are considering buying, including the words
"user reviews" or "user comments" will probably give you more useful and
honest advice than you'd get from any magazine.

Sadly, crap "best buy" sites know this and do key word flooding,
rendering such searches less useful than you might hope.

BugBear

magazine
 

In article , Bugbear wrote:
However, unbiased unedited opinions of real people who've actually bought and
used an item are much more informative. You have to expect a few nutters of
course, but they usually indicate clearly by the obsessive, inarticulate, or
downright offensive nature of their postings that their opinions are best
regarded as worthless, and can be disregarded.

There's a more general problem, even with sincere intelligent
people. Most people will have gone through some kind
of evaluation process prior to making a choice.

It is only natural to want your choice to (have been)
the right one, and thus there is a string tendancy
to rationolise what you've got, even if it doesn't match
your original hopes.

Oh yes, I know about the "hi-fi cables syndrome", which is why I'm usually more
interested in reading the bad reviews than the good ones. I would recommend
looking out for any common feature in the complaints, as this might indicate a
problem that the company in question was failing to address, whereas a random
selection of different gripes could be the result of natural human bitchiness.
Where there are no restraints, some people will complain about anything, and all
you can do is try to recognise these.

A Google search for what you are considering buying, including the words
"user reviews" or "user comments" will probably give you more useful and
honest advice than you'd get from any magazine.

Sadly, crap "best buy" sites know this and do key word flooding,
rendering such searches less useful than you might hope.

"Caveat emptor" still applies, as always. On balance, I think the vastly increased
amount of information now available to us thanks to the internet is a Good Thing,
even if a large percentage of it is ********, as long as we recognise it when we
see it.

Rod.

magazine
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:
"Caveat emptor" still applies, as always. On balance, I think the
vastly increased amount of information now available to us thanks to
the internet is a Good Thing, even if a large percentage of it is
********, as long as we recognise it when we see it.

Indeed. Sturgeon's law applies. The problem is that a lot of people are
unwilling or unable to apply critical thinking to things they read. This is
why I still receive a steady stream of helpfully forwarded crap in my inbox,
notifying me of the latest devastating mobile phone viruses ("this
information has been confirmed by Nokia and Motorola") or Bill Gates'
frantic attempts to divest himself of his fortune through the medium of
chain emails ("I'm a lawyer so I know this is true").

I thought I was making progress with my patient attempts to educate my
correspondents, until I discovered that one of them was still forwarding
crap, but had simply removed me from his distribution list - a recipient of
his latest missive forwarded it to me to ask if it was true...

magazine
 

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
That's because it wasn't readily available. Perhaps things have changed
now.

If Which's research only goes as far as what is available in their
researchers local branch of Comet, then that is even more reason to
distrust them. So what if something (at the time) was only available
via the web? If it is a great product, they should still inform their
readers about it.

So you think they should search the world and buy one of everything and
test then all? Sounds like a good idea but rather impractical. So they
stick to things which anyone can buy easily - which usually means on sale
in the high street. The next test of PVRs will likely include the Toppy -
which I've bought even although a Which subscriber.

--
*A nest isn't empty until all their stuff is out of the attic

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

magazine
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
That's because it wasn't readily available. Perhaps things have
changed now.

If Which's research only goes as far as what is available in their
researchers local branch of Comet, then that is even more reason to
distrust them. So what if something (at the time) was only available
via the web? If it is a great product, they should still inform their
readers about it.

So you think they should search the world and buy one of everything
and test then all? Sounds like a good idea but rather impractical. So
they stick to things which anyone can buy easily - which usually
means on sale in the high street.

No, they should get a clue about the products they are reviewing, and select
them accordingly. We live in the Internet age, and plenty of people are
happy to shop online.

Perhaps if they concentrated on technical competence, rather then on
marketing promotions reminiscent of the worst excesses of the Reader's
Digest, they might have a magazine worth buying.

magazine
 

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 23:20:40 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

So you think they should search the world and buy one of everything and
test then all? Sounds like a good idea but rather impractical. So they
stick to things which anyone can buy easily - which usually means on sale
in the high street. The next test of PVRs will likely include the Toppy -
which I've bought even although a Which subscriber.

I am sure Which are happy for your continued patronage despite
offering **** poor advice for the money.

I used to subscribe to it about 20 years ago, and found some of the
more generalised information about money and consumer matters to be
useful, but I quickly learned that product guides were of limited
value at best.

They are completely irrelevant in the Internet age.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

magazine
 

In article ,
Pyriform wrote:
Perhaps if they concentrated on technical competence, rather then on
marketing promotions reminiscent of the worst excesses of the Reader's
Digest, they might have a magazine worth buying.

Why does it concern non Which members what Which contains? It's not
subsidised by direct funds from anywhere or advertising money, and I've
seen far more plain misleading equipment reviews in specialist mags who
arse lick the advertisers.

--
*Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

magazine
 

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
So you think they should search the world and buy one of everything and
test then all? Sounds like a good idea but rather impractical. So they
stick to things which anyone can buy easily - which usually means on sale
in the high street. The next test of PVRs will likely include the Toppy -
which I've bought even although a Which subscriber.

I am sure Which are happy for your continued patronage despite
offering **** poor advice for the money.

I used to subscribe to it about 20 years ago, and found some of the
more generalised information about money and consumer matters to be
useful, but I quickly learned that product guides were of limited
value at best.

They are completely irrelevant in the Internet age.

You'll be hard pressed to find unbiased reports on the web.
But no-one is forcing you to take out a Which subscription, so why so
antagonistic towards it? I can understand some makers not being happy
since they can't threaten to withdraw their advertising...

--
*Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

magazine
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You'll be hard pressed to find unbiased reports on the web.
But no-one is forcing you to take out a Which subscription, so why so
antagonistic towards it?

I once had a Which? subscription but found the reviews so inconsistent or
misleading that I ceased to subscribe. That, I would have thought to be
good enough reason for warning others off it.

--
From KT24 - in drought-ridden Surrey

Using a RISC OS5 computer

magazine
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Pyriform wrote:
Perhaps if they concentrated on technical competence, rather then on
marketing promotions reminiscent of the worst excesses of the
Reader's Digest, they might have a magazine worth buying.

Why does it concern non Which members what Which contains? It's not
subsidised by direct funds from anywhere or advertising money, and
I've seen far more plain misleading equipment reviews in specialist
mags who arse lick the advertisers.

I wasn't defending misleading reviews elsewhere. My problem with Which is
that its much vaunted impartiality leads some people to believe that by
reading it they are getting the very best advise possible, and that
frequently isn't true. And if denigrating good products (whether by
commission or omission) damages those products chances of success in the
marketplace, I have a right to be concerned.

I may not be a Which 'member', but I am often on the receiving end of their
promotional campaigns. These look very much like the kind of thing Which
ought to be criticising, not engaging in themselves!

magazine
 

In article ,
John Cartmell wrote:
Why does it concern non Which members what Which contains? It's not
subsidised by direct funds from anywhere or advertising money, and I've
seen far more plain misleading equipment reviews in specialist mags who
arse lick the advertisers.

Because Which have enough clout to destroy industries.

Perhaps you'd name one this happened to? Or perhaps you feel they were
unpatriotic in mentioning the various BL cars they tested which fell apart?

--
*People want trepanners like they want a hole in the head*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

magazine
 

In article ,
charles wrote:
You'll be hard pressed to find unbiased reports on the web.
But no-one is forcing you to take out a Which subscription, so why so
antagonistic towards it?

I once had a Which? subscription but found the reviews so inconsistent or
misleading that I ceased to subscribe. That, I would have thought to be
good enough reason for warning others off it.

Would you care to state when this was? The examples you've given here were
before living memory. ;-)

--
*I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

magazine
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Cartmell wrote:
Why does it concern non Which members what Which contains? It's not
subsidised by direct funds from anywhere or advertising money, and
I've seen far more plain misleading equipment reviews in specialist
mags who arse lick the advertisers.

Because Which have enough clout to destroy industries.

Perhaps you'd name one this happened to? Or perhaps you feel they were
unpatriotic in mentioning the various BL cars they tested which fell
apart?

As I remarked earlier they slated the Rover 2000 - because they (Which?)
had fitted the wrong sparking plugs. They told everyone that Japanese tv
sets were far more reliable that British ones so that the badge engineered
Japanese ones made in Wales far outsold the UK badged ones made in the same
factory and as a result that UK manufacturer pulled out of tv set making.

Possibly it was the same tv survey that said that Fergusson sets were far
more reliable than HMV - despite the fact it was exactly the same set in a
wooden as opposed to plastic cabinet. This was based on a survey of
subscribers of whom only 2 had HMV sets - one of which developed a fault.
So HMV sets had a 50% failure rate.

--
From KT24 - in drought-ridden Surrey

Using a RISC OS5 computer

magazine
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
You'll be hard pressed to find unbiased reports on the web.
But no-one is forcing you to take out a Which subscription, so why so
antagonistic towards it?

I once had a Which? subscription but found the reviews so inconsistent
or misleading that I ceased to subscribe. That, I would have thought
to be good enough reason for warning others off it.

Would you care to state when this was? The examples you've given here were
before living memory. ;-)

I'm still alive, thank you.

--
From KT24 - in drought-ridden Surrey

Using a RISC OS5 computer

magazine
 

In article ,
Pyriform wrote:
Why does it concern non Which members what Which contains? It's not
subsidised by direct funds from anywhere or advertising money, and
I've seen far more plain misleading equipment reviews in specialist
mags who arse lick the advertisers.

I wasn't defending misleading reviews elsewhere. My problem with Which
is that its much vaunted impartiality leads some people to believe that
by reading it they are getting the very best advise possible, and that
frequently isn't true.

It is impossible to give accurate advice for the individual - all you can
do is give guidance to help them make up their own mind. Unfortunately,
Which reports tend to get judged on their headlines published by the meja,
- far from the complete story. Which is why you need to read it all.

And if denigrating good products (whether by commission or omission)
damages those products chances of success in the marketplace, I have a
right to be concerned.

Really? Are you equally concerned about all other magazines and TV progs
etc giving opinions on consumer products?

I may not be a Which 'member', but I am often on the receiving end of
their promotional campaigns. These look very much like the kind of
thing Which ought to be criticising, not engaging in themselves!

Never heard of the postal preferences scheme? That stops this sort of junk
mail. Or are you also against an organisation being allowed to promote
itself within the law - or only just Which doing this?

--
*Succeed, in spite of management *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

magazine
 

In article ,
charles wrote:
Perhaps you'd name one this happened to? Or perhaps you feel they were
unpatriotic in mentioning the various BL cars they tested which fell
apart?

As I remarked earlier they slated the Rover 2000 - because they (Which?)
had fitted the wrong sparking plugs.

I'd guess this was rather before I read Which - and why did they change
the spark plugs? It's not something they tend to do when testing cars...
However, the Rover P6 2000 suffered from many flaws when first introduced,
some cured with development, some not.

They told everyone that Japanese tv sets were far more reliable that
British ones so that the badge engineered Japanese ones made in Wales
far outsold the UK badged ones made in the same factory and as a result
that UK manufacturer pulled out of tv set making.

I suppose you can put that interpretation on events. However, given pretty
well the same happened with all other UK owned and manufactured goods
perhaps it was the UK companies that were somehow to blame? Not responding
to consumer demand being the prime one - 'we know better what they really
need and want'?

Possibly it was the same tv survey that said that Fergusson sets were
far more reliable than HMV - despite the fact it was exactly the same
set in a wooden as opposed to plastic cabinet. This was based on a
survey of subscribers of whom only 2 had HMV sets - one of which
developed a fault. So HMV sets had a 50% failure rate.

Since you know the sample size it was obviously published in Which - and
certainly these days they make a point if that sample is too small for any
pattern to be established. However, any sample which shows a maker in a
bad light, reliability wise, is always too small a sample for that maker -
as recently happened with Jaguar cars.

--
*There are two sides to every divorce: Yours and **** head's*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

magazine
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
And if denigrating good products (whether by commission or omission)
damages those products chances of success in the marketplace, I have
a right to be concerned.

Really? Are you equally concerned about all other magazines and TV
progs etc giving opinions on consumer products?

I am concerned about misleading or incorrect information wherever it is
published. But when it comes from Which the detrimental effect is amplified
by their lofty stance of absolute objectivity.

I may not be a Which 'member', but I am often on the receiving end of
their promotional campaigns. These look very much like the kind of
thing Which ought to be criticising, not engaging in themselves!

Never heard of the postal preferences scheme? That stops this sort of
junk mail.

I have my own way of dealing with junk mail - I send the offenders each
other's junk, using their reply-paid envelopes. Much more satisfying.

Or are you also against an organisation being allowed to
promote itself within the law - or only just Which doing this?

I don't object to Which promoting themselves. I just think the way they
choose to do it reflects badly on the organisation. Perhaps you've never
seen any of the material to which I refer, given that you already subscribe.

magazine
 

In article ,
Pyriform wrote:
Really? Are you equally concerned about all other magazines and TV
progs etc giving opinions on consumer products?

I am concerned about misleading or incorrect information wherever it is
published. But when it comes from Which the detrimental effect is
amplified by their lofty stance of absolute objectivity.

You think they claim that? Have you ever read it?

I may not be a Which 'member', but I am often on the receiving end of
their promotional campaigns. These look very much like the kind of
thing Which ought to be criticising, not engaging in themselves!

Never heard of the postal preferences scheme? That stops this sort of
junk mail.

I have my own way of dealing with junk mail - I send the offenders each
other's junk, using their reply-paid envelopes. Much more satisfying.

You must have plenty time on your hands. Junk mail here goes straight into
the re-cycling sack unopened.

Or are you also against an organisation being allowed to
promote itself within the law - or only just Which doing this?

I don't object to Which promoting themselves. I just think the way they
choose to do it reflects badly on the organisation. Perhaps you've never
seen any of the material to which I refer, given that you already
subscribe.

I think I get some for the parts of Which I don't subscribe to. No matter
- it gets treated the same way as all of it.

--
*The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

magazine
 

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 17:18:08 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

I am concerned about misleading or incorrect information wherever it is
published. But when it comes from Which the detrimental effect is
amplified by their lofty stance of absolute objectivity.

You think they claim that? Have you ever read it?

Their website does:
"No advertising, no bias, no hidden agenda. Just expert advice from an
independent source."

--
*The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging!

sound of exploding irony meter
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

magazine
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
Perhaps you'd name one this happened to? Or perhaps you feel they were
unpatriotic in mentioning the various BL cars they tested which fell
apart?

As I remarked earlier they slated the Rover 2000 - because they (Which?)
had fitted the wrong sparking plugs.

I'd guess this was rather before I read Which - and why did they change
the spark plugs? It's not something they tend to do when testing cars...

Apparently they liked to do their own servicing rather than letting an
authorised dealer do the work.

--
From KT24 - in drought-ridden Surrey

Using a RISC OS5 computer

magazine
 

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
I am concerned about misleading or incorrect information wherever it is
published. But when it comes from Which the detrimental effect is
amplified by their lofty stance of absolute objectivity.

You think they claim that? Have you ever read it?

Their website does:
"No advertising, no bias, no hidden agenda. Just expert advice from an
independent source."

That's 'a lofty stance of absolute objectivity'?

Sounds more like a statement of fact.

--
*All generalizations are false.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

magazine
 

In article , Pyriform wrote:
I have my own way of dealing with junk mail - I send the offenders each
other's junk, using their reply-paid envelopes. Much more satisfying.

PC World sell a cross-cut shredder that can take 8 sheets at once,
including staples, and mince them into confetti. If I get anything I don't
want that has my name and address on it, I just post it in the slot on the
top. Now *that's* satisfying.

Rod.

magazine
 

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
Their website does:
"No advertising, no bias, no hidden agenda. Just expert advice from an
independent source."

That's 'a lofty stance of absolute objectivity'?

Sounds more like a statement of fact.

Are you financially involved with them aside from paying for the rag?
You seem desperate to defend them no matter what.

I defend them in that they do what they set out to do - to give a guide to
the average punter, not enthusiast. Non of which will agree about reviews
in 'their' mags either, come to that.
Most who criticise Which have never even read it but base their views on
newspaper headlines.

--
*That's it! I‘m calling grandma!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.