Consumer Reports slams Magnum

Consumer always gives the best rating in simple matters like peanut butter to
some local in house brand that only a small geographic area has access to.
I remember one report on health insurance. The best one rated was available to
Federal government workers only.
Don't rate stuff like this, rate items that everyone and their hunky brother
can buy.

Or the best buy item was discontinued the day you got the issue in the mail.
Or 6 months after they top rated an item and you purchased it, they publish
an article recommending that reader's don't buy it because it is unreliable.
Or the day after you buy it they publish a new article saying that all the
readers that bought it hate it because it has one major deficiency that they
missed.

Unfortunately, CR is still better than nothing. It does make you aware of
what is available.


"TOM KAN PA" > wrote in message
...
> Consumer always gives the best rating in simple matters like peanut butter
> to
> some local in house brand that only a small geographic area has access to.
> I remember one report on health insurance. The best one rated was
> available to
> Federal government workers only.
> Don't rate stuff like this, rate items that everyone and their hunky
> brother
> can buy.
>
>

Or the best buy item was discontinued the day you got the issue in the mail.
Or 6 months after they top rated an item and you purchased it, they publish
an article recommending that reader's don't buy it because it is unreliable.
Or the day after you buy it they publish a new article saying that all the
readers that bought it hate it because it has one major deficiency that they
missed.

Unfortunately, CR is still better than nothing. It does make you aware of
what is available.


"TOM KAN PA" > wrote in message
...
> Consumer always gives the best rating in simple matters like peanut butter
> to
> some local in house brand that only a small geographic area has access to.
> I remember one report on health insurance. The best one rated was
> available to
> Federal government workers only.
> Don't rate stuff like this, rate items that everyone and their hunky
> brother
> can buy.
>
>

"RPhillips47" > wrote in message
...
> "Richard" wrote:
>
>>My experience with cars is that Consumer Reports usually gets it right.
>>(OK
>>Mr. Stern, they were a bit brain dead with lighting issues).
>>
>>Richard.
>
> Why do I think of PT Barnum when I read this response and think of CR?

OK, I give up; why?

Richard.

"RPhillips47" > wrote in message
...
> "Richard" wrote:
>
>>My experience with cars is that Consumer Reports usually gets it right.
>>(OK
>>Mr. Stern, they were a bit brain dead with lighting issues).
>>
>>Richard.
>
> Why do I think of PT Barnum when I read this response and think of CR?

OK, I give up; why?

Richard.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, it was written:
>
>> My experience with cars is that Consumer Reports usually gets it right.
>> (OK
>> Mr. Stern, they were a bit brain dead with lighting issues).
>
> My experience with everything from telephones to toasters to washing
> machines to automobiles to oil filters to frozen pizza is that Condemner
> Retards usually gets it wrong.
>
I find, when it comes to vehicles, when CU, Car & Driver and Road and Track
agree with each other you can have some security in following their lead.
But CU's survey information is very useful on areas of reliability. This is
not utopia and CU is far from perfect, but sometimes it is a good starting
point. Today the net gives us other outlets for information. Just like this
newsgroup; don't you think.

Richard.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, it was written:
>
>> My experience with cars is that Consumer Reports usually gets it right.
>> (OK
>> Mr. Stern, they were a bit brain dead with lighting issues).
>
> My experience with everything from telephones to toasters to washing
> machines to automobiles to oil filters to frozen pizza is that Condemner
> Retards usually gets it wrong.
>
I find, when it comes to vehicles, when CU, Car & Driver and Road and Track
agree with each other you can have some security in following their lead.
But CU's survey information is very useful on areas of reliability. This is
not utopia and CU is far from perfect, but sometimes it is a good starting
point. Today the net gives us other outlets for information. Just like this
newsgroup; don't you think.

Richard.

"Richard" > wrote:
> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> n.umich.edu...
> > On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, it was written:
> >
> >> My experience with cars is that Consumer Reports usually gets it
> >> right. (OK
> >> Mr. Stern, they were a bit brain dead with lighting issues).
> >
> > My experience with everything from telephones to toasters to washing
> > machines to automobiles to oil filters to frozen pizza is that
> > Condemner Retards usually gets it wrong.
> >
> I find, when it comes to vehicles, when CU, Car & Driver and Road and
> Track agree with each other you can have some security in following their
> lead. But CU's survey information is very useful on areas of reliability.
> This is not utopia and CU is far from perfect, but sometimes it is a good
> starting point. Today the net gives us other outlets for information.
> Just like this newsgroup; don't you think.
>
> Richard.

Car and Driver and Road and Track both accept adverisers' dollars, so you
won't find many objective reviews in either mag.

Consumer's Union stopped being objective when they decided to accept oil
reports from manufacturers rather do their own tests, in order to save
money.

As for their surveys, did you ever notice that all up-scale and Japanese
cars get top marks?

That's simply because their owners have plenty of time on their hands to
respond to CU's questionaires and have never owned anything else except
upscale products.

CU reflects the elitist attitudes of its subscribers and nothing more.

Best,
doc

"Richard" > wrote:
> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> n.umich.edu...
> > On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, it was written:
> >
> >> My experience with cars is that Consumer Reports usually gets it
> >> right. (OK
> >> Mr. Stern, they were a bit brain dead with lighting issues).
> >
> > My experience with everything from telephones to toasters to washing
> > machines to automobiles to oil filters to frozen pizza is that
> > Condemner Retards usually gets it wrong.
> >
> I find, when it comes to vehicles, when CU, Car & Driver and Road and
> Track agree with each other you can have some security in following their
> lead. But CU's survey information is very useful on areas of reliability.
> This is not utopia and CU is far from perfect, but sometimes it is a good
> starting point. Today the net gives us other outlets for information.
> Just like this newsgroup; don't you think.
>
> Richard.

Car and Driver and Road and Track both accept adverisers' dollars, so you
won't find many objective reviews in either mag.

Consumer's Union stopped being objective when they decided to accept oil
reports from manufacturers rather do their own tests, in order to save
money.

As for their surveys, did you ever notice that all up-scale and Japanese
cars get top marks?

That's simply because their owners have plenty of time on their hands to
respond to CU's questionaires and have never owned anything else except
upscale products.

CU reflects the elitist attitudes of its subscribers and nothing more.

Best,
doc

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Joe wrote:

>> My experience with everything from telephones to toasters to washing
>> machines to automobiles to oil filters to frozen pizza is that
>> Condemner Retards usually gets it wrong.

> I agree with Dan. Reading CU, I often conclude that their choices
> reflect their agenda rather than the facts. They might be objective on
> subjects where they don't have an agenda.

Their agenda is self-promotion, nothing more or less. They love to crow
about how they accept no advertising. That's true as far as it goes, but
their magazines are absolutely full of ads...for themselves. That's how
they make their money, is by selling the magazine.

I happen to own an early-'60s Dodge. Found a 1961 Consumer Reports
magazine issue on Ebay with a review of my car, so I bought it. It was fun
to read the old road test, but more than that, it was really interesting
to compare the 43-year-old issue with a current-day issue. Night and day,
not even CLOSE to being the same magazine, except at the very broadest,
most general conceptual level.

If there were still a magazine in regular publication directly comparable
to the Consumer Reports of 1961, I'd subscribe.

But there isn't.