To what extent Em? Because you are basically questioning integrity. Had you been loaned/given a bike would you have compromised your integrity by giving it praise that you knew it didn't deserve? I'm guessing you are going to say "no, I wouldn't". And I would believe you; so I think REMOVED deserves the same respect.
It's not necessarily conscious giving of undue credit. People go easy on freebies, a fact cosmetic companies exploit when doing "research". Not a reflection on integrity.
Well, I am crediting REMOVED with enough self-awareness to avoid that. Anyway, it's not important really, Em is not having a dig like some others have had a dig in the past.
Would it be particularly churlish to disagree with your first statement?
I firmly believe that anybody who is given something for free will be more likely to like the product that they were given. That includes myself.
To typify the process involved when accrediting an item with worth/value;
Worth
Does any given item serve a purpose?
Does it peform it's intended purpose successfully?
Is the useable lifespan acceptable for its application?
Value
Is the initial cost acceptable?
Are the running costs acceptable?
The trick of all commodoties is to balance cost against quality.
Of course people are capable of applying common sense when reviewing an item and discounting the cost element, however, there is no notable way to take into account how harsly they have applied this logic. Have they over compensated? Have they under compensated? Have they just ignore it all together?
In thew case of Foffa tough, personally, the only reason that I would discount Wicksie's point of view is precisely because she is so vocal in her support of Danni. Something which I believe she is only doing as she feels compelled to due to her previous issues with the now irrelevant mechanic.
I would question, If I were to build a bike from my spares box and give that to someone for free, would they feel compelled to tell everybody how kind and generous I am and what a good bike it is?
I firmly believe that anybody who is given something for free will be more likely to like the product that they were given. That includes myself.
To typify the process involved when accrediting an item with worth/value;
Worth
Does any given item serve a purpose?
Does it peform it's intended purpose successfully?
Is the useable lifespan acceptable for its application?
Value
Is the initial cost acceptable?
Are the running costs acceptable?
The trick of all commodoties is to balance cost against quality.
Of course people are capable of applying common sense when reviewing an item and discounting the cost element, however, there is no notable way to take into account how harsly they have applied this logic. Have they over compensated? Have they under compensated? Have they just ignore it all together?
In thew case of Foffa tough, personally, the only reason that I would discount Wicksie's point of view is precisely because she is so vocal in her support of Danni. Something which I believe she is only doing as she feels compelled to due to her previous issues with the now irrelevant mechanic.
I would question, If I were to build a bike from my spares box and give that to someone for free, would they feel compelled to tell everybody how kind and generous I am and what a good bike it is?