Quote from: 2tec on 2009-05-04 18:10:36

By the way, just out of curiosity, is your spell-check broken or are you just in a rush and being careless?

This is a bit funny coming from someone who doesn't appear to get a commission for using adverbs or proper subject/verb agreement.

Greynol, you made your point. Perhaps, however, you could provide a reference for your assertion so that I might learn from my grammatical mistake?

Quote from: 2tec on 2009-05-04 18:10:36

By the way, just out of curiosity, is your spell-check broken or are you just in a rush and being careless?

This is a bit funny coming from someone who doesn't appear to get a commission for using adverbs or proper subject/verb agreement.

Quote from: greynol on 2009-05-04 18:26:56

Quote from: 2tec on 2009-05-04 18:10:36

By the way, just out of curiosity, is your spell-check broken or are you just in a rush and being careless?

This is a bit funny coming from someone who doesn't appear to get a commission for using adverbs or proper subject/verb agreement.

And this is a bit funny coming from someone who has failed to comment on many other grammatical errors from many other posters. Can we stick to the point?

How was that incentive delivered to you in a tangible way?  Answer: via a paycheck from the store where you worked.

The customer was not your employer.  You've finally admitted that you "receive paychecks from the store they work under".

The tax man thinks that your employer was this store where you worked.

The store where you worked reported you to the government  as an employee.

Your customers left to their own thoughts thought that employer was this store where you worked.

I think that your employer was this store where you worked.

You can believe what you want, say what you want, but in fact your employer was this store where you worked.

Not on any standard sales contract. The address that changed was the address of the purchaser. The address of the store, your employer, was no doubt permanently printed on every contract.

Quote from: botface on 2009-05-04 19:18:57

Quote from: greynol on 2009-05-04 18:26:56

Quote from: 2tec on 2009-05-04 18:10:36

By the way, just out of curiosity, is your spell-check broken or are you just in a rush and being careless?

This is a bit funny coming from someone who doesn't appear to get a commission for using adverbs or proper subject/verb agreement.

And this is a bit funny coming from someone who has failed to comment on many other grammatical errors from many other posters. Can we stick to the point?

1) It would be if I had thrown the first stone, though my effort to point out the facts will probably be lost on you.

2) When do you plan on sticking to the point?

EDIT: Kudos for crafting the 1000th post to this discussion in the form of a non sequitur.

However, we both know that salespeople receive paychecks from the store they work under.

Which under common law as well as the laws of most governments, makes the store your employer.

Only if you call blatant denial of common law and relevant local law thoughout most of the world "addressing". I'm in a good mood today so I'll call it spin.

Most sales people are "at will" employees. That means that they have a job per the will of the employer, not the will of the customers. Most salespersons are motivated to improve the financial situation of their employer, plain and simple. Unprofitable employers have this nasty tendency of going out of business. No business, no job!

What rhetorical tactics?

You seem to wish to deny general commecial practice and business law throughout the first and second worlds.

Quote

You seem to wish to deny general commecial practice and business law throughout the first and second worlds.

I, in no way, seem to wish to deny general commercial practice and business law throughout the first and second worlds, what ever that means.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2009-05-04 16:02:42

This is far from the general case. In general, commissioned salespersons are paid by their employer who is the sales enterprise. IOW, the store. Been there, done that, many times.

I disagree, as a commission sales person, I was paid a 'commission' on items I sold. The more I sold, the more I made. There were no wages or salary ever paid to me by the company I sold for. In fact, I was repeatedly told, and we as sales people believed, that the customer was the employer. I don't know what sales world you live in, but it's apparently not the same reality as I've experienced.

In my opinion, all your talk about employment and sales has been a rhetorical distraction meant to shift the focus away from the topic of this thread.

Are you suggesting that your situation is the predominant commercial practice?

From what I can tell, Arny has been addressing the topic of this thread head-on.

At any time you could have chosen to pick up from the other discussion the two of you were having:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....mp;#entry631999

We need to prove 2tec's hypothesis, that salesmen, who are just doing their job, have less incentive to "stretch the truth" (for money) than audio reviewers, who are just doing their job - against all intuition and experience.

By the way, don't double blind tests often go "against all intuition and experience"?

Quote from: greynol on 2009-05-04 20:45:08

Are you suggesting that your situation is the predominant commercial practice?

Personally I don't think that I've stated anything other than commission sales was in no way different in my particular situation or that my situation was any different than any other commission salesperson.

Quote

From what I can tell, Arny has been addressing the topic of this thread head-on.

In my opinion, an argument over what commission salespeople are, isn't immediately relevant in terms of understanding the subjective listening perspective, or in explaining exactly what it was that so impressed the author of the original article enough to motivate him to share his experience.

In my opinion, an argument over what commission salespeople are, isn't immediately relevant in terms of understanding the subjective listening perspective, or in explaining exactly what it was that so impressed the author of the original article enough to motivate him to share his experience.

By the way, aren't you ignoring all the other loose ends in this thread?

By the way, did you get a chance to let me know exactly where that grammatical error was?

Quote from: rpp3po on 2009-05-04 20:52:20

We need to prove 2tec's hypothesis, that salesmen, who are just doing their job, have less incentive to "stretch the truth" (for money) than audio reviewers, who are just doing their job - against all intuition and experience.

Who is we? Is it my hypothesis, and if possible, perhaps you could provide a link to exactly what statement of mine that you're referring to?

Well, you did say that a commission salesperson is "common". link

Yes, and you were the one to get stuck in this argument over what a good salesperson is, over an analogy by shakey_snake (which I still think is valid) - although I'm not exactly innocent when it comes to stretching out that debate.

Quote from: Pike84 on 2009-05-04 23:32:41

Well, you did say that a commission salesperson is "common". link

So? Are you suggesting it's uncommon? Does it make a difference? Is this relevant?

It seems as if I'm denounced if I answer, and I'm denounced if I haven't..  What's a person to do, eh? Personally, I can only hope I've addressed your concerns.

Quote from: 2tec on 2009-05-04 15:52:16

Quote

It's true that because of advertising, the reviewer's objectivity may be compromised, and that's what a lot of this discussion has been about: many people have questioned the objectivity of articles written by mr. Fremer and mr. Atkinson.

The problem is in how you've represented the review as objective. This is factual incorrect as a reviewer isn't a scientist and isn't conducting a controlled experiment. A reviewer is a subjective expert providing a subjective opinion.

Of course in absolute sense, every review is by definition completely subjective. But I think you can still understand the point of trying to be "objective", in the sense of providing factual information, that is not coloured by ulterior motives. This is what was questioned in those aforementioned articles.

It is also ultimately irrelevant, whether the reviewer is a scientist or not - he/she might as well be one. Reviews may also include controlled experiments to support the reviewer's views.