"Rich Westerman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<22e2a87f8ba2ec44ffe5a686246d420d@TeraNews>...
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:
BROL (bentrideronline) does have a substantual amount of information. However, because is
essentially a "free" site, and relies heavily on advertising funds, I'd strongly urge skepticism
when reading the "Reviews". BROL's forum pub65.ezboard.combbentrideronlineOpen ↗ )is a
generally sufficient because of it's knowledgable audiance.
The Recumbent Cyclist News is unquestionablly the BEST unbiased recumbent (both new and
homebuilt) information source available.
hmmmm, I'm curious why you would declare the feature reviews on BROL suspect while endorsing the
reviews of RCN, which is also dependent on paid advertisers.
curiously, rich
RCN is mostly a subscriber based publication and is therefore not nearly so dependent on
advertisers. As a matter of fact, as a long term subscriber, I have seen issues which were quite
vacant of advertising, often due to less than totally favorable reviews of a manufacturer's latest
recumbent.
But more importantly, RCN has been around for a long time and Mr. Bryant, the editor, has gained a
deserved reputation as giving you the pros and cons in connection with all the bicycles that are
reviewed therein. Comparing RCN to BROL is like comparing apples to oranges. Both will give you lots
of good information, but I will go with RCN everytime for final evaluation and judgement.
Those who charge RCN with bias are quite unfair as Mr. Bryant is always very open about his
particular preferences. And what is wrong with that? Do not you and I also have particular
preferences. That in no way prevents a fair review and in fact makes the review even better than it
would otherwise be when you know the reviewer's preferences and can then discount them or not as you
will (I however have the same preferences as Mr. Bryant so there is nothing to discount). Frankly, I
hate rave reviews. They tell you nothing worth knowing.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota