I actually still think many of the original criticisms of the article or announcement were warranted. I will admit that I did not study the article, but based on my relatively quick read of the article and the link to the criteria for judging, one could very easily interpret the article as indicating some testing of the products at issue. I in fact would have interpreted it as such as it was originally posted. (And, I basically read and interpret things for a living.) "According to Axiom" at the beginning fixes that problem for the Axiom discussion, but it appears that was not originally in the article. Also, they did not make a change for any other product, which makes things even more troubling. It now even more strongly implies that the other products actually were tested because they don't have the caveat. I also wonder at the motivation of just adding the caveat to the Axiom description.
I don't have an opinion generally about Audioholics. I have looked at the site on a few occassions, and found it helpful, but I am not an audiophile by any stretch. I'm sure I'll continue to periodically read articles there, I'll just be more circumspect about what I am reading.
I don't want to detract from the award or lead to any ill will toward Axiom. I am, after all, just someone who bought some of their speakers and enjoys the forum. But, it is perfectly fair to comment on public articles. I think it is particularly fair to "review" the "reviewers," and it is then fair for them to defend themselves.