I have come to the conclusion, buttressed by most others, that CB has the best bladders, and the widest range of options for most users.

For example, their HydroLink system allows me to use my CB as a source for drinking while wearing most gas masks, and, more usefully, there is a water filter attachment that allows the water filter to fill the bladder via the drinking hose.  That's handy, and poses far less risk of introducing contaminated water into the bladder.

Disclaimer;  No financial interest.

Let me explain.  When I post a recommendation about a company, I'm aware of my position here as Sr.Staff.  Now, some folks might not care one way or the other, but I've never accepted a cent or a piece of gear on account of my position here.  I've had Members here offer me stuff for postage only, and I've refused their kind offer, and paid them market price plus postage.

So, if I post a recommendation, based on my personal, hands-on, bought-for-my-own-use item, I think you all ought to know that NOBODY ever pays for my opinion.  Period.  That's what the "Disclaimer" is all about.

Tell you what;  Mebbe you should ask somebody touting a bit of gear if they have any connection to the vendor/producer.

I can say this for sure:  This site is rampant with folks that get sweetheart deals on gear and then, somehow, post glowing reviews of same.

Mebbe you all should ask these guys what their connection is to the mfr/vendor.  If they don't post a disclaimer, asI I did, then maybe they stand to make some money out of their reviews.  Maybe not, but asking them up-fromt might be interesting.
.

At the time of my original posting, I was entirely unaware that you sold the CB stuff, so my subsequent remarks were not directed at you, specifically.  If my remarks offended, even inadvertantly, I apologize.
Frankly, your post was quite informative, and I recognize the time and effort that went into making it.

The disclaimer I made in my post, and which I subsequently explained, is something that I have been doing for a long time, and was not, in any way, a shot at you, personally.

I have no objection to folks doing a little selling of stuff here and there.  OTOH, at some point (and that point is tough to pin down) folks vending stuff begins to step on the Dealers and Industry Partners who support the Site by paying for that privelege.  This Site has always been friendly to the little guy just starting out, but that policy has to be balanced against the legitimate inteests of paying Site supporters as well.

One recurring problem is that some folks do not reveal themselves as dealers, as having gotten a piece of gear for cheap/free, and/or a personal relationship with a gear Mfr/Vendor.  They then write a very nice review of same, while not informing the reader fully about who they are, how they got the gear, and about any relevant conflicts of interest that might bias their review.  Personally, I object to such practices, and I never want to be confused with such people.  Hence my disclaimer, which I post from time-to time, as the situation warrants.

I can't make anyone else issue disclaimers, or fully reveal any conflicts of interest they might have.  It would be nice (and forthright of them) if they did so, but they aren't compelled to do so.  That said, it is up to every reader to consider whether or not the writer of a particular review does, or does not, have a hidden agenda.

For example, if someone writes a review, and begins by saying that "My brother-in-law gave me this piece of gear for free, so I could write a review of it and post it here",  is at least being honest about that aspect of things, and I can accept that.  If the subsequent review is a good one, and a fair one, then I might even buy the thing.

OTOH, if a reviewer does NOT reveal such conflicts of interest, and such become known later on, then he's poison to me, and I'll ignore his reviews, and the products he's shilling for.

Your original post wasn't a problem, because all you were doing is providing factual, objective information.  Nobody can object to that; it's a big part of what this entire Site is for.

I will add the following quote from another thread in this forum:

"Thanks for understanding. I don't think you have to stop posting about [your friend's Company's] products, but I would ask that you not use any pix that you, yourself had not taken, and that you refrain from any sort of links to the Company. Mention their name, if you like, but no pix you, personally didn't take, no watermarked pix, and no links [to your Friend's company], OK?
The above is just an interim request. When some reasonable guidelines are hammered out, we'll post them for everyone to see. My intent, at present, is for such guidelines to hold tor the entire site, not just this forum, so don't feel picked-on."


Anyway, Tim, I hope all this clears up things a bit, and I want you to know that I was not trying to single you out as having done anything out of line in your original post.

Is it just me, but is anyone else very skeptical about zippers on field gear?

I have had all types and Mfrs fail at one time or another, and depending on the useage, the zipper's failure ranges from inconveniance to near disastrous in its' effects.

Zippers have their place in non-critical areas, but I think they are utilized too often as a cost-cutting/design simplification measure.

I don't care for them, and I think their extensive use a drawback.