Re: S&T C-6 Review
- From: "rat ~( );>" <ratboy99@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Jun 2006 23:51:22 -0700
Brian Tung wrote:
But even
if he is, the question stands: If the reviewer wrote a negative review,
or at least a review that pointed out a few too many negative points,
would Sky and Telescope refuse to publish it as written (either reject
it or suggest revisions to make it more positive)? It's certainly
possible, but do they in fact behave that way?
This brings up an idea. Perhaps there is a different strategy
altogether. I never see S&T reviewing crap junk telescopes. Perhaps
they focus on decent telescopes in the first place and simply decline
to do negative reviews by avoiding reviewing junk scopes.
The most obvious exception I have seen to this idea was the negative
review of the TMB eyepieces. I feel that there must have been some sort
of personal agenda involved in that fiasco. While it might be possible
to argue that a $90 TV Plossl can proffer views just as good, I think
it was unfair the way they were slammed in the review.I own several and
they are the equal of any eyepiece that I have looked through for
planetary observing through my APO refractors. And then they go on to
speak highly of the new C-6's optics, that's ironic. It was a shame to
see a small producer of high quality equipment take it on the chin in
such a way, a shame indeed...
rat
~( );>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: S&T C-6 Review
- From: Don't Be Evil
- Re: S&T C-6 Review
- From: Phil Wheeler
- Re: S&T C-6 Review
- From: atasselli@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: S&T C-6 Review
- From: Brian Tung
- Re: S&T C-6 Review
- References:
- S&T C-6 Review
- From: Doink
- Re: S&T C-6 Review
- From: Alan French
- Re: S&T C-6 Review
- From: Doink
- Re: S&T C-6 Review
- From: Brian Tung
- S&T C-6 Review
- Prev by Date: Re: Cartes du Ciel Version 3 beta 0.1.0
- Next by Date: Re: S&T C-6 Review
- Previous by thread: Re: S&T C-6 Review
- Next by thread: Re: S&T C-6 Review
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|