On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:54:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/19/2017 9:08 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 15:24:31 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 3/19/2017 2:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Now I have to go cash my check from Reelight.

Such things are usually done by "loaning" you test samples of the
products, and then "forgetting" to recover them. In theory, you're
expected to declare the value of such samples as income for tax
purposes. Payments of cash or checks are rare unless you are hired as
a consultant.

Yes, but a couple of people in this group insist that the only reason I
favor good lights is because I am getting paid by light companies. The
fact that it isn't true doesn't matter to them. They will come up with
any excuse they can think of to try to ignore the data.

If you arrange with Reelight to send your persecutors some free sample
lights, they might be inclined to reconsider their position.

The problem here is that if you are repeatedly accused of some
dastardly crime against the cycling multitudes, such as accepting
payola from a vendor, the mere repetition of the accusation will
eventually cause it to become a truism. Anyone who searches the web
for bicycle lighting recommendations will eventually blunder across
those accusations. The casual reader is more likely to accept the
accusations at face value than to continue reading the subsequent
discussion material. You might consider writing a explanation, FAQ,
or manifesto on the topic, which you can reference in future
discussions on the topic.

If Mr. Scharf were to do that, honesty would require including quotes of
his original statements saying something like "please start your
purchases from my website" and bragging about his "guerilla marketing to
all aspects of the bicycling community" - or whatever the precise
wording was. (I wish now I'd saved a copy.)

guerilla ~ a member of an irregular armed force that fights by
sabotage and harassment.
--
Cheers,

John B.