Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

Re: True, but...

Posted by John Atkinson on March 5, 2007 at 11:36:16:
>everything you say is true. But the person filing the lawsuit needs
>money to do that. In my experience, most reviewers don't have that
>kind of scratch. I would think that a lawsuit with no chance of
>prevailing would be unlikely.

Having been sued a number of times, Wendell, I regret that you are
too innocent. The plaintiff's suit may be without merit, but there
are plenty of lawayers who will file the suit and front the upfront
costs, taking a hefty percentage of any settlement in return. Their
goal is not to _win_ a frivolous lawsuit for their client. Instead,
they gamble that faced with the choice between spending a large 6-
figure sum on a successful defense against the suit or a small
5-figure sum on a with-prejudice settlement, many defendants will
choose the latter as being the better of two bad things.

>My real point is that it serves no purpose to talk of an unnamed
>person from an unnamed magazine stealing or otherwise acting
>unethically. It spreads the suspicion too broadly.

I don't disagree. But I did think it necessary, given the wide
circulation being given this matter, to point out that it did _not_
involve Stereophile or a Stereophile writer.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile