"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ...

I find it interesting that you fail to mention the author of the review
articles. To the best of my knowledge, it is the writer and researcher's
opinion that is presented in a review....other than outright censorship, the
only legitimate thing an editor can do is add a dessenting endnote or blurb
if he feels the article contains outright error and he can support that
opposing view.

Well, the other thing he can do is refuse to run the piece. That's not
"censorship." That's editorial discretion. I've edited a couple of
political magazines and I've run opinion pieces I disagreed with many
times. I've also refused to run opinion pieces because I thought the
writer failed to make a cogent argument.

I'd argue that someone who endorses Shakti Stones or any other
scientifically implausible tweak solely on the basis of sighted
listening is not making a cogent argument. And an editor with any
respect for science wouldn't run it.

It's not as if Stereophile were an open forum. There are many opinions
that are not permitted in its editorial pages (letters to the editor
excepted). Who decides not to run articles about ABX testing of
tweaks? Who decides not to run side-by-side blind comparisons of
components? John Atkinson does. He may not share every opinion that
appears in his magazine, but he is responsible for whatever
pseudoscientific garbage appears in its pages, precisely because he
makes those choices.

bob