dogbreath

I see that we are singing from the same hymn book and are on the same page, but have different points on how LW folk should handle the baseless accusations that you have found.

LW folks have over the past year, to my knowledge, constantly repeated that LW (since V4.0) does not carry any ad or spyware. I don't believe that LW people should engage in a debate with journalist, internet or otherwise, who are too lazy to check their facts.

Like film critics who plagiaries each others film reviews, these people have not seen LW they have just dug up an old review and, adding some spin, just copied it. In other words, how can you have a meaningful debate with someone or organisation that is prepared to release a false story as fact.

Any responsible technical reviewer would submit their reviews to the company concerned giving them enough time to reply to the negative points in that review. That way the reader is presented with both sides of any disagreement. But to republish old news as current is, basically, tabloid journalism and, as you no doubt know, tabloids are not interested in truth or facts, things which get in the way of a good story.

I guess that the LW folks would reply if they were given the choice but the writers of these dubious reviews you have read would not want that because it would spoil the story they were telling.





UK Bob