BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="brocknroller" data-source="post: 3264080" data-attributes="member: 665">Same old tripe, don't fall for it even if he isn't being vitriolic at the moment. He doesn't believe ANY complains by members even from those who own Swarovski binoculars, and he has just proved that again with Chilli. Just click on his name and go back and check his posts, and you'll find this pattern of denials to be consistent in all the years he's been posting on BF. Even Arthur commented on this, and it's hard to find a more even-handed member than Arthur. He keeps insisting that only ownership over time not merely trying Swaros gives one the right to comment on the brand, and that's because he has owned Swaros for a long time, and therefore his premise sets himself up as an authority not to be questioned. If he doesn't find an issue with Swaros, there is no issue. When other diehard fans declare problems mentioned on the forums to be 'non-issues, he echoes their sentiment, or in this last case, posts an clapping hand similie. I've tried samples from friends who loaned them to me for over a month, and I think that's long enough to find out if they work or don't work properly, particularly since those samples have ranged in age from nearly brand new to nine years old to 20 years old. The span of their age and of the other samples I've tried for shorter periods, which included a year-old EL, a five-year old SLC, and a brand new SLC, obviates his premise. </blockquote>

Verification