|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.87.199.219
In Reply to: Re: DUT Return Policy posted by John Atkinson on February 21, 2007 at 04:14:14:
If all you do is get pissed off by respondents?
Your "essay" was understood. Reviewers should return said goods without being prompted to do so.
When you drive Ferraris all the time it must suck to have to suffer a drive to the store in a Honda.
At least HP does not visit here to imply how much we all suck!
Follow Ups:
> Why do you visit here If all you do is get pissed off by
> respondents?
Because either I am asked a direct question, and I feel I should
respond, or a comment is made about Stereophile that I feel needs to
be addressed. As someone whose abilty to pay his mortgage depends
on the willingmess of readers to support what he does, I have always
tried to be publicly responsive to those readers.
And no, I don't get pissed off by all respondents on the Asylum,
only by those who appear to wish Stereophile be held to a higher
standard of behavior than other magazines. I think being skeptical
about what my magazine does and how it operates is a sign of health,
and in return I try to make as much as is appropriate about what we
do public knowledge. Hence Art's and my essays in the March issue.
But I remain puzzled why that same skepticism no longer appears to be
felt appropriate by some inmates regarding how other magazines run
their businesses.
And in response to a stateement of yours in another posting, no I did
not tell you to "Fuck Off." That is your projection, pure and simple.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"And no, I don't get pissed off by all respondents on the Asylum, only by those who appear to wish Stereophile be held to a higher standard of behavior than other magazines. ... I remain puzzled why that same skepticism no longer appears to be felt appropriate by some inmates regarding how other magazines run their businesses."
If memory serves, you yourself have suggested you hold your writers to a higher standard, so why become disgruntled with your readers when they do the same? When it comes to ethics I’m sure you’d like to think Stereophile is the gold standard vis-à-vis audio journals. Therefore, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you become huffy with your readers when they embrace the same notion. You can’t have it both ways, old darlin. You’ve set the bar very high. Now live with it.
Judging from reading both JA and HP for quite some time, I would bet that insofar as either of them think "how much we all suck" HP would be for me the more likely candidate to think that more often or more intensely than JA.
I'm sorry JA. I was out of line.
AA was and should be entertaining to me. When it starts to result in getting "pissed off" it's best to do something differently.
Time for a break to regain perspective.
> I'm sorry JA. I was out of line. <
No problem. I apologise for not responding yesterday, but your posting
appeared as a response to Tom Larson and I missed it.
John Atkinson
Editor, Umbrellaphile (with a nod to Bruce Kendall)
Burberry? S.A.Brigg, perhaps?
God please help me.
...
I did not get any sort of negative vibe from JA's response. He simply stated the increasingly obvious- by reading the lines and between the lines it is becoming increasingly obvious that Stereophile is the leader in ehtical relationships between manufacturers,reviewers and readers.
The fact he bothers to respond and try to set the record straight while others,like the one you mention, seem not to care enough to at least respond to the degree they perceive legal requirments allow,seems an odd thing to complain about.
He basically told me to Fuck Off.
....and a gentleman. However you interpreted his comments is on you.
...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: