Jim Beam writes:

http://www.jimbeam.com/jb_web/

quick survey:

hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment
they've never tried. anyone?

further example: criticism of new materials outside the experience
of the author and/or based on erroneous "facts" is a particularly
interesting phenomenon.

why do people do it? seriously, i'm genuinely interested by this.
any thoughts?

I see you have a hard time asking the question. How about starting
with:

"Do you feel free to criticize a piece of equipment that you haven't
tried."

The answer is yes. You don't have to try everything to form an
opinion, especially if you can cite concrete reasons for that opinion.
An example is, using non-pneumatic tires to avoid flats. I have not
tried such tires since the days of riding a tricycle and an American
Flyer wagon and have never used them on a bicycle, yet I feel
competent in explaining why you wouldn't want to use them. Evidence
abounds.

Similarly, I can advise against recumbents for general bicycling, for
transportation, touring and riding trails, as I define it from my own
experience. This in spite of persistent claims by their advocates of
the recumbent's superiority over conventional bicycles. Evidence
abounds.

There are scientific analyses and history to spare us the task of
incrementally testing every piece of equipment that appears on the
market. These, together with observation of others who willingly
perform such tests, enable us to make decisions about these things.

I would expect you to understand this since you put yourself forth as
a scientific person. Apparently you are sensitive to posing this
question since you have been argumentative here on many issues. You
dodge and weave as you pose the "question" which appears as an only
slightly veiled criticism... backing into the subject.

So my question is:
At what school did you pass English, and is your spelling a revolt
against what was taught there?

Jobst Brandt