@bigtwin you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I respect that. You are certainly entitled to believe that someone can receive tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment at no cost of them to use in their personal system for an indefinite period of time and not be in any way influenced by that arrangement. You can believe that, but It’s quite reasonable to draw the opposite conclusion, as many people have done. It is clear, however, that this practice is the very definition of a conflict of interest. That doesn’t make the arrangement illegal. It seems that in fairness to people who pay for subscriptions, however, that the full details of these transactions should be disclosed so that readers can assess the credibility of the opinions expressed about the equipment under review with full knowledge of all the facts. What’s wrong with that?
You might want to read what Mr. Harley said a little closer. He said that he could call just about any manufacturer on the planet and get virtually any piece of gear to use in his system for an “indefinite period.” In my opinion that does not meet the definition of a loan. What does the phrase “indefinite period” mean to you?
You should also note that I didn’t call anyone a liar, that’s a word that you used. Actually, Harley completely acknowledges that this gear is given to him and presumably those who work for his magazine on a regular basis and that it can be used for an indefinite time. So the facts are not in dispute only the conclusions we draw from them.
whether it’s wise or not, there are people who rely on these “reviews“ for purchasing decisions. I think fairness dictates that the relationships between the reviewers, the magazine and the manufacturer be disclosed so those people can judge the credibility of the review for themselves. It seems that you disagree and again, you are entitled to that opinion