matthewpiano
Well-known member
And for what it is worth I think Clare has provided more than enough factual evidence to answer the original question.
Dave_
Well-known member
maxflinn:daveh75:max have you seen the hx903?
no daveh , i have not ... but , why ask ?because of...
maxflinn:3d is very new but the panasonic has the edge over the rest , if only slightly compared to the hx903 ..
It's misleading max,
Anyone reading that would think you have compared the two,and have actual knowledge of the set... Whereas it's opinion based on your interpretation of reviews..
no daveh , i have not ... but , why ask ?because of...
maxflinn:3d is very new but the panasonic has the edge over the rest , if only slightly compared to the hx903 ..
It's misleading max,
Anyone reading that would think you have compared the two,and have actual knowledge of the set... Whereas it's opinion based on your interpretation of reviews..
Clare Newsome:
And yet again you choose to ignore my factual post that proves we're not biased.
clare , you took it a step too far giving the pana 4 stars , deal with it , im going to the beach for a walk , i dont care if you give the sony 50 stars , its your website , have a good weekend ...
And yet again you choose to ignore my factual post that proves we're not biased.
clare , you took it a step too far giving the pana 4 stars , deal with it , im going to the beach for a walk , i dont care if you give the sony 50 stars , its your website , have a good weekend ...
maxflinn:clare , you took it a step too far giving the pana 4 stars , deal with it
Took what a step too far? And please back off on the aggressive tone
maxflinn:i
dont care if you give the sony 50 stars
Clearly you do
maxflinn:its your website , have a
good weekend ...
Does that mean the ill-informed hijack attempt is at an end? Somehow I don't believe it...
Took what a step too far? And please back off on the aggressive tone
maxflinn:i
dont care if you give the sony 50 stars
Clearly you do
maxflinn:its your website , have a
good weekend ...
Does that mean the ill-informed hijack attempt is at an end? Somehow I don't believe it...
Gosh, that was a short walk. Couldn't you wait to get back? Or did the crusading spirit swell within you once more?
Max, you're like a dog with a bone on this one, aint ya?!!
You might be annoying some people with this, BUT, there's validity to your argument. You've got the courage of your convictions, so good on ya, I say.
You might be annoying some people with this, BUT, there's validity to your argument. You've got the courage of your convictions, so good on ya, I say.
Andrew Everard:Gosh, that was a short walk. Couldn't you wait to get back? Or did the crusading spirit swell within you once more?
no andrew , i didnt want anyone to think i was being aggresive as well as delusional , thats all , ive had my walk now thank you , and im looking forward to watching the formula 1 ..
so unless you want to get me going again with your little digs , lets leave it be now .. im sure the forum is sick of our little exchanges .. have a good day ..
no andrew , i didnt want anyone to think i was being aggresive as well as delusional , thats all , ive had my walk now thank you , and im looking forward to watching the formula 1 ..
so unless you want to get me going again with your little digs , lets leave it be now .. im sure the forum is sick of our little exchanges .. have a good day ..
maxflinn:so unless you want to get me going again with your little digs
Delusional, aggressive and now paranoid, it seems, but at least now I know it's OK for you to make the most scurrilous insinuations without actually having read the article in question, but not for us to respond in kind in our defence. Thanks for clearing that one up.
Delusional, aggressive and now paranoid, it seems, but at least now I know it's OK for you to make the most scurrilous insinuations without actually having read the article in question, but not for us to respond in kind in our defence. Thanks for clearing that one up.
Andrew Everard:
maxflinn:so unless you want to get me going again with your little digs
Delusional, aggressive and now paranoid, it seems, but at least now I know it's OK for you to make the most scurrilous insinuations without actually having read the article in question, but not for us to respond in kind in our defence. Thanks for clearing that one up.
im a total fruitcake andrew , absolutely bonkers , i spent 3 years in therapy with my last shrink , you know what he done ? he ate a 32in television , when i found out i had a nice bottle of cianti , slurp , slurp , slurp .. mmm . yum yum ...
enjoy your airshow
maxflinn:so unless you want to get me going again with your little digs
Delusional, aggressive and now paranoid, it seems, but at least now I know it's OK for you to make the most scurrilous insinuations without actually having read the article in question, but not for us to respond in kind in our defence. Thanks for clearing that one up.
im a total fruitcake andrew , absolutely bonkers , i spent 3 years in therapy with my last shrink , you know what he done ? he ate a 32in television , when i found out i had a nice bottle of cianti , slurp , slurp , slurp .. mmm . yum yum ...
enjoy your airshow
maxflinn:im a total fruitcake andrew , absolutely bonkers , i spent 3 years in therapy with my last shrink , you know what he done ? he ate a 32in television , when i found out i had a nice bottle of cianti , slurp , slurp , slurp .. mmm . yum yum ...
quod erat demonstradum
maxflinn:enjoy your airshow
Decided not to bother: just discovered the Vulcan has gone tech and been grounded, so will just watch from the garden.
quod erat demonstradum
maxflinn:enjoy your airshow
Decided not to bother: just discovered the Vulcan has gone tech and been grounded, so will just watch from the garden.
Andrew Everard:
maxflinn:im a total fruitcake andrew , absolutely bonkers , i spent 3 years in therapy with my last shrink , you know what he done ? he ate a 32in television , when i found out i had a nice bottle of cianti , slurp , slurp , slurp .. mmm . yum yum ...
quod erat demonstradum
maxflinn:enjoy your airshow
Decided not to bother: just discovered the Vulcan has gone tech and been grounded, so will just watch from the garden.
ordinati
maxflinn:im a total fruitcake andrew , absolutely bonkers , i spent 3 years in therapy with my last shrink , you know what he done ? he ate a 32in television , when i found out i had a nice bottle of cianti , slurp , slurp , slurp .. mmm . yum yum ...
quod erat demonstradum
maxflinn:enjoy your airshow
Decided not to bother: just discovered the Vulcan has gone tech and been grounded, so will just watch from the garden.
ordinati
I agree Bretty, this discussion is not over yet!
I have read WHF every month since 1994.
That is long enough to see what can sometimes appear as bias being simply the ebb and flow of manufacturers success at matching their R&D programs with actual market production. They all have good years, bad years, and purposefully quiet ones spent beavering away in labs. NAD, for example ..
At the start of this whole chain a valid point was raised regards discrepancy between the vast majority of Panny reviews and WHF's. Other magazines are often clearer on how they come to their conclusions. In this chain we have seen Claire provide evidence to defend decisions that were made - as well as the usual pointless interjections from Andrew - but the process WHF uses to get to those decisions remains mostly opaque.
I don't really see anyone in this chain asking for WHF to qualify its impartiality in the way Claire tried, but rather to improve the transparency in its decision making process and criteria weightings. If that was in place this forum discussion would never have got started.
Personally, I have no doubts regards WHFs impartiality (except perhaps for the sad and misplaced devotion to Apple that a lot of people seem to suffer from). However, I would also like to see more detail in the testing process come out in the magazine.
I have read WHF every month since 1994.
That is long enough to see what can sometimes appear as bias being simply the ebb and flow of manufacturers success at matching their R&D programs with actual market production. They all have good years, bad years, and purposefully quiet ones spent beavering away in labs. NAD, for example ..
At the start of this whole chain a valid point was raised regards discrepancy between the vast majority of Panny reviews and WHF's. Other magazines are often clearer on how they come to their conclusions. In this chain we have seen Claire provide evidence to defend decisions that were made - as well as the usual pointless interjections from Andrew - but the process WHF uses to get to those decisions remains mostly opaque.
I don't really see anyone in this chain asking for WHF to qualify its impartiality in the way Claire tried, but rather to improve the transparency in its decision making process and criteria weightings. If that was in place this forum discussion would never have got started.
Personally, I have no doubts regards WHFs impartiality (except perhaps for the sad and misplaced devotion to Apple that a lot of people seem to suffer from). However, I would also like to see more detail in the testing process come out in the magazine.
kjelly:as well as the usual pointless interjections from Andy
We'll have a word with Mr Clough about those in the morning
We'll have a word with Mr Clough about those in the morning
Andrew Everard:
kjelly:as well as the usual pointless interjections from Andy
We'll have a word with Mr Clough about those in the morning
I'm sure you will Mr E, I'm sure you will! Anyway, I'm back from a very lovely 7-mile walk in the Surrey countryside (no talk of TVs there), but did have a James May moment when we came across a group of model airplane enthusiasts on a disused runway who treated us to an amazing display of acrobatics with their remote-control toys.
Great fun, if not in quite the same league as the real things at Farnborough, I suspect.
kjelly:as well as the usual pointless interjections from Andy
We'll have a word with Mr Clough about those in the morning
I'm sure you will Mr E, I'm sure you will! Anyway, I'm back from a very lovely 7-mile walk in the Surrey countryside (no talk of TVs there), but did have a James May moment when we came across a group of model airplane enthusiasts on a disused runway who treated us to an amazing display of acrobatics with their remote-control toys.
Great fun, if not in quite the same league as the real things at Farnborough, I suspect.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram