|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.143.123.42
In Reply to: Yup posted by John Atkinson on February 3, 2007 at 11:51:46:
c'mon John, if you don't have t!he spheroids to name names and offer specifics, don't spread rumours. Be up front and be honest or begone. Talk about sleazy!!!!!You should be ashamed of yourself! I wouls cancel my subscription but I did some time ago!
Follow Ups:
> if you don't have t!he spheroids to name names and offer specifics,
> don't spread rumours. Be up front and be honest or begone. Talk about
> sleazy!!!!!Regarding Aczel's unethical behavior, the Fourier affair is not rumor.
It was eventually disclosed in the pages of The Audio Critic. His
illegal use of a copy of Stereophile's subscriber list is also not
rumor; he was forced by Stereophiles lawyer to publish a statement in
TAC explaining that he would not use the purloined list again.
Regarding the investment issue, I had no reason to believe the report
untrue, but you are right: Without being able to offer substantiation,
I should not have mentioned it. Consider it withdrawn.
> You should be ashamed of yourself!
Speaking in general terms, I would indeed be ashamed if I a) had taken
money from a company whose products I was to review in my magazine, b)
favorably reviewed products made by a company in which I had an
ownership interest, c) illegally made use of another magazine's
intellectual property, d) given preferential treatment to companies
that advertise in my magazine. Please note that I have done none of
those things.
> I would cancel my subscription but I did some time ago!
Yeah, right.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Odd, I seem to recall that this is the *second* time here you've mentioned something that legally 'you should not have' regarding Aczel.
Ah yes, here it ishttp://www.audioasylum.com/scripts/t.pl?f=critics&m=15106
Then of course there's the question of whether some rather non-disinterested parties are reporting the Fourier fracas accurately:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/f44d2cc8b0a1fbe6?hl=en&
Non - disinterested equals interested. Since I'm quoted in one of the web sites you referenced I can only assume that you mean me. Please explain exactly why you think I'm an interested party in the Fourier scandal. I had and have no claim or stake in that sordid affair except as a former subscriber to The Audio Critic whose expection that the owner would meet minimal standards of decent behavior was abused. On what evidence do you assert otherwise?It's noteworthy that the very same people who attack Stereophile, TAS , and the other audio magazines for a wide range of perceived sins against reason and science resort to absurd, tortuous hairsplitting to excuse Aczel's misbehavior ("it wasn't really a review so he didn't do anything wrong"). The point is so simple that a child can understand it but Aczel's obsequious toadies somehow cannot: he never told his readers plainly and directly anything like "I own half of the company that makes this speaker that I'm writing about and I'll make money if you buy a pair." If he had just been open about his direct financial interest in the Fourier company no one would have had anything to complain about.
The jury will ignore the witness's previous outburst...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: