Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site digi-g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!digi-g!amir
From: amir@digi-g.UUCP (Amir )
Newsgroups: net.video
Subject: Re: Consumer Reports reviews VHS tapes
Message-ID: <379@digi-g.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Nov-84 15:04:43 EST
Article-I.D.: digi-g.379
Posted: Mon Nov 12 15:04:43 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 22-Nov-84 07:38:25 EST
References: <351@digi-g.UUCP> <>
Reply-To: amir@digi-g.UUCP (amir)
Distribution: net
Organization: DigiGraphic Systems Corp., Mpls.  MN
Lines: 42
Summary: 

In article <> rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) writes:
>> >	A recent issue of _Consumer Reports_ reviewed the VHS T-120 Video
>> >cassettes made by several manufacturers...
>[discussion of ratings followed]
>> 
>> If Consumer Reports has said that, then I say they are getting some under
>> the table money.
>
>If you say that, I'd say you're being stupid to the point of tempting
>trouble.  Consumer Reports has ALWAYS had the strictest of non-
>commercialism policies, and they're willing to go to some lengths to
>make the point.  In fact, quoting from a note on "CU's objectivity" in the
>1984 Buying Guide:
>
>	If you ever hear that ANY CU Rating has been influenced by ANYONE,
>	ask whoever says it to write it down and sign his or her name to
>	it; then please send the document to us.  Consumers Union takes
>	full responsibility for the integrity of its work.  We think it is
>	fair to ask anyone who impugns that integrity to assume
>	responsibility for doing so--and for the consequences.
>
>["Consumers Union"==CU is the organization which publishes "Consumer
>Reports.]
>
>All of this isn't to say that CU may not have missed some points or done
>the wrong sort of tests.  I've seen some reports, particularly in the past
>couple of years, with serious technical flaws.  But there's a big
>difference between making a mistake and accepting a bribe (unless you're a
>politician:-).  In CU's case, they rely very heavily on their reputation
>for impartiality.
>
>So was that just an off-the-cuff swipe at CU because their results don't
>square with your experience, or do you mean what you said?
>-- 
>Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
>   ...Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.


As far as stupidity goes, do not confuse me with your family.

I do not care what CU says, don't tell me that some of the reports they 
give is not biased to the American Products!