MuleBar ReFuel

Posted: 17/02/2010 19:57

Posted: 18/02/2010 10:47

Posted: 21/02/2010 19:34

Posted: 21/02/2010 21:54

Posted: 21/02/2010 21:59

Well, Rich; do you think the report is biased? I don't or it would not have been published.

Posted: 22/02/2010 12:25

Rich Land wrote (see)

my point is how can the review be unbiased.

Posted: 22/02/2010 14:00

My point is that DA rode for the team last year. It would be a bit like asking a Pro how is your bike, do you like it.

RH, I'll slope off and read another site. The review would have more substance having been written by someone who has not had recent connections with the product. But as Editor if your happy that's great as you are responsible for the overall content.

Posted: 24/02/2010 19:39

Posted: 24/02/2010 22:05

Posted: 24/02/2010 23:23

Posted: 24/02/2010 23:24

Posted: 24/02/2010 23:50

Rich Land wrote (see)

My point is that DA rode for the team last year. It would be a bit like asking a Pro how is your bike, do you like it.

RH, I'll slope off and read another site. The review would have more substance having been written by someone who has not had recent connections with the product. But as Editor if your happy that's great as you are responsible for the overall content.

Fine.

You have produced nothing to back up your insinuation that DA wrote a biased review other than the blanket assertion that he must have been biased when he wrote it. Your complaint would carry more substance if you could back it up with evidence.

The substance of the review is that the product in question tastes nice and is quite expensive. How might it have more, given that we reviewers must accept as accurate the nutritional information given?

Posted: 25/02/2010 09:11

If DA scoffed these for a whole season then he is more likely to give an accurate review than if he only had tried a one off sample.

Would the same argument ,(not from me I must add) , apply to any products Richard or DA write about, particularly if Magicalia are paid to test and write about the product? The point I am making is that if Rich's point is valid then some may point the finger and say they will be biased in their reviews. Well I know what I mean!

I sense a bit of 'history' somewhere.......??

Posted: 25/02/2010 09:28

Thing is, Bally, we aren't paid by any outside supplier to test stuff. Anything sent in for testing gets tested in as objective a manner as we can contrive. Naturally we have favourite items in any category but in my case at least that is because, having tried them, I like them and, if I give a favourable write-up, it is because the product has favourably impressed me.

"History"? None that I am aware of. Rich L has written stuff for RCUK himself in the past

Posted: 25/02/2010 18:17

Posted: 25/02/2010 19:04