Is the Berning ZH270 revalatory?

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 :)

From the beginning of this thread I thought that Zaikesman's initial post was severe and presumptuous. I agree that his subsequent attempts to justify or explain his initial post fall short of what really is called for--a simple apology. However, Zaikesman is not stifling "free speech" or doing anything else "unconstitutional": this is an audio forum; Zaikesman was expressing his opinion as a member, from no position of official authority. Nor were his reasons for not assuming innocence unreasonable, even though there was no need for the accusatory tone and tact. If folks on all sides in the audio world could chill, it would be a better, nicer place.

Allanbhagan: I regret it if I made you feel personally attacked; I myself don't think I did attack you, although it was my intent to encourage a response from you on this thread. I note for the record that Mew says he did not construe my words as an attack, and I accept that statement at face value, as I hope you would mine.

I must agree with Lmack's assessment of your claims regarding abridgement of freedom of speech and unconstitutionallity. Even so, I'll also take his advice and say I'm sorry if my words caused anyone hurt. While I believe a careful rereading of what I wrote won't reveal any 'accusations' or alleging of facts not in evidence, Tubegroover's point about first trying to get in touch directly with the original poster regarding my initial concerns is not without merit.

The way I see the situation now, the original post, while strongly resembling a particular sort of classic 'troll', probably appeared that way simply out of inexperience on the part of the thread-head. But my reaction to it makes clear that I am every bit as jaded and skeptical as Mew seems to be naive and well-intentioned. Is that a good or a bad thing for one to be on the web? I'm not sure I know, but I do know I'm not proud of having become that.

Zaikesman, apology more than accepted, I see that you are doing some inner searching and truly now understand what reaction that this could have caused, Sir I do now have much respect for you.