I enjoyed the tube/ss debate being conducted by manufacturers I admire. However, I disdained the reliability attack hurled at a specific product. It was a cheap shot, in what was formerly a lively debate.
As a consumer, I find it unreasonable and irresponsible to air a products malfunction publicly; unless of course, all private efforts with the producer have failed to resolve the issue. I would have assumed that a neophyte manufacture trying to peddle his wares would be even more reticent to launch a reliability salvo at another manufactures product.
Im sure none of the product purveyors in this thread intend to market anything but robust designs, and if the inevitable problem arises, they will stand behind their products and step up and resolve the issue.
Using a specific product malfunction as an argument against the technologies being discussed was inappropriate, made exponentially worse, when the reason for the failure was revealed.
Judging a specific products inherent design qualities by using a one-off occurrence of dubious derivation was unwarranted and unworthy of the tone of the discussion up to that point!
Was the veracity of one party less than the others? At the time not really! But honesty and accuracy are two different sides of the same coin.
The point remains that the coin should have never been thrown! Sure, one could argue that the coin was thrown to defend a design philosophy and was done in the heat of the moment etc. However, those are excuses for poor taste and for a quick finger on the submit button; both of which are antonymic to the thoughtfulness and the logic I would assume to exist in a designer and manufacturer of the product levels being discussed.
As a consumer, I find it unreasonable and irresponsible to air a products malfunction publicly; unless of course, all private efforts with the producer have failed to resolve the issue. I would have assumed that a neophyte manufacture trying to peddle his wares would be even more reticent to launch a reliability salvo at another manufactures product.
Im sure none of the product purveyors in this thread intend to market anything but robust designs, and if the inevitable problem arises, they will stand behind their products and step up and resolve the issue.
Using a specific product malfunction as an argument against the technologies being discussed was inappropriate, made exponentially worse, when the reason for the failure was revealed.
Judging a specific products inherent design qualities by using a one-off occurrence of dubious derivation was unwarranted and unworthy of the tone of the discussion up to that point!
Was the veracity of one party less than the others? At the time not really! But honesty and accuracy are two different sides of the same coin.
The point remains that the coin should have never been thrown! Sure, one could argue that the coin was thrown to defend a design philosophy and was done in the heat of the moment etc. However, those are excuses for poor taste and for a quick finger on the submit button; both of which are antonymic to the thoughtfulness and the logic I would assume to exist in a designer and manufacturer of the product levels being discussed.