I can perhaps better understand now many people's stance about CDRInfo (and their owners). I still believe that some of the information they provide is useful, not available elsewhere and based on all information available to me also accurate.
While I agree on the copy/paste mentality as I've personally notified them how they have incorrectly copied (along with OCR errors) material to their Writing Quality article from Pohlman's "Principles of Digital Audio" for which they have also failed to provide a proper reference, I cannot know the details of other perhaps personal matters behind the scenes. And even if I did, I think there are no reason for condemning the quality of all the information they provide. If all of the information they provided was false, which it clearly isn't, perhaps I would think otherwise.
My personal stance is that as long as they provide useful and factual information, which they do - as not all of the material they publish is by any means false, they are useful to me as a source of information.
If other people have some personal grumblings about the owners/authors as persons, I think they should keep them as separate arguments. Otherwise they succumb to ad hominems and make themselves look biased.
The rules of proper argumentation dictate that one should not let one's personal opinion about argumentor's persona cloud one's judgements about the argument itself. This extends as far as one argumentor should not be considered erroneous in all of one's arguments, even if some previous arguments have been shown to be false.
And if there are factual errors, I suggest you do the same I do: point out the errors and let others draw their own conclusions. Name calling is immature and unprofessional, even if based on personal experience. And yes, I'm guilty of that as well, but not proud of it.
Please do not understand this as a criticism (or some silly juvenile male lenght comparison between different sites or their respective owners). I just wish we could let factual issues remain factual and personal matters remain personal.
Furthermore, please do not understand that I'm in no way defending CDRInfo authors/owners for the things they have been claimed to have done. If they are indeed guilty of such things, then those acts should be condemned, but the facts they provide can also remain useful.
I'm off the soap box as I have had my say. People can draw their own conclusions. I speak for nobody except myself and am in favor of no one. I just wish we'd see less of these 'mine is bigger than yours' wars. Can't we just try and get along?
PS If you want to learn from CDRInfo, try looking at the way they approach DAE testing. There are many things people could learn by doing some of the things they do right. And again, not to mention other's don't do it right, just differently.