Mike, I'm not wrong. I had a discussion about this with the fellow who's done the RC sim reviews. He had to ask ER's permission in order to get the specs for his computer added into the reviews after they'd been finished.

You're one of the people I've seen encourage users to do this, Mike.

Plenty of "detail" that could be in reviews certainly comes out in the threads about the particular products. There's ample opportunity. There is, however, spin involved. That P-38 review, for example. Rather than saying that it was a product you'd not buy for yourself, you said it's a "builder's ARF." That's faint praise, but it certainly isn't how most people would choose to communicate the message.

I think that's great. How many of the other reviewers have been making their livings with video cameras? I'd wager that the vast majority of them are amateurs. If I'm wrong about that, please do correct me.

You're taking this personally, and that's unfortunate. RCU's reviews are tainted because of the economic realities that support them as well as the overall design of the review program. Near as I can tell, you're not responsible for either of those. If you want to take offense at a specific comment I've made about or to you in particular, shoot me a PM and let's hash it out.