|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
4.237.92.114
In Reply to: Re: Chinese Whispers? posted by Brian Walsh on March 7, 2007 at 10:35:35:
> Bob Crump's estate was settled long ago, so the matters are closed.
Thanks for letting me know.
> From an ethical standpoint J-10 should have returned them upon
> request.
I agree. Whether it was Jonathan or not. John Curl first raised this
matter on the Asylum at the end of June last year without naming the
reviewer concerned. I asked him for details but he didn't want to
discuss it in public or via email (see the thread starting with
message 23714). Ultimately, I called John the week starting July 14
and he told me, according to my notes, that the matter was closed as
far as he was concerned without giving me any more information.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Follow Ups:
JA, I am sorry that this has come up again. I don't want restitution of Bob's cables, but in principle it is much the same situation that JV is accused of, and apparently the cable company has been compensated in that instance, by TAS.
I might note that I did not publically bring out the reviewer's name (JS) on this website, but told you privately, because I did not want to embarrass your magazine or the former reviewer specifically, but I still wanted to make the point that being very high-minded means that one's situation must be pristine in order to accuse others of malfeasance.
I don't think that dragging stuff up like this out helps anyone.
That I recall...I had a pair of Bob's power cords, one of them called the "Goldstein" amusingly enough, when I started out at TAS in '91. 18 months later, I joined Stereophile.
It's a while ago, but I recall a back'n'forth with Bob about his power cords. As I remember it, I was trying to convince him that there was no reason to "pull" the cords because I'd left one magazine for another, and that I'd be very happy to write about them in Stereophile. Good guy, good products, etc., but knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have pushed the matter then.
"Okay, they're yours," he said, and I remember that very specfically I thought, "that's odd, I guess he means it's okay to keep them and write about them in SP." Perhaps I was a bit naive at the time, not having reviewed for too long, about the longer-term implications of what I had suggested.
Until Bob's untimely death in '05, as far as I could make out, we were buds, enjoyed lots of laughs together. If he was harboring bad feelings, he never let on. This included post-Stereophile times. And Mr. Curl never said anything to me, before or after, and I've seen him many times.
It's many years on from this incident, I've learned a lot about how the industry works from both sides now through my years at Stereophile, Monster, and now with my own marketing/brand building operation Scull Communications, where ironically, I spend a lot of time making sure stuff like this doesn't happen to my clients!
If the cords' cost is to be reimbursed, it's on me. I can't locate them now.
> I am sorry that this has come up again. I don't want restitution of
> Bob's cables, but in principle it is much the same situation that JV
> is accused of, and apparently the cable company has been compensated
> in that instance, by TAS.
I get your point, John. _My_ point is that when I did phone you to
offer to resolve this matter, you told me that it was a closed
issue for you. You told me that though you remember that it was
Jonathan Scull who was the reviewer involved, you didn't know what
cables had been sent him, you didn't know when they had been sent,
you didn't know what the value of the cables was, and that you
couldn't tell me anything more. You concluded the conversation by
telling me that I should forget about it.
> I might note that I did not publically bring out the reviewer's
> name (JS) on this website, but told you privately, because I did
> not want to embarrass your magazine or the former reviewer > specifically...
And I told you that those were not concerns of mine, that if what
you were saying was correct, I would like to sort it out.
> I still wanted to make the point that being very high-minded means
> that one's situation must be pristine in order to accuse others of
> malfeasance.
A good point, of course, but I fail to understand why you are
condemning Stereophile for poor behavior when it was you, yourself,
John, who told me _not_ to bother when I offered to resolve the
matter last July. In addition, I am not a mindreader. If you and the
late Bob Crump were so upset by what happened, why didn't either of
you contact me at the time? Why did you wait several years to raise
this matter in public?
> I don't think that dragging stuff up like this out helps anyone.
So why did you raise it, John? You told me when I offered to resolve
the matter that it was a closed issue for you. Obviously it was not.
And now you are criticizing me for _not_ resolving it? Pshaw.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
JA, I did not want it to come to this: I am not trying to make a problem with 'Stereophile', you, or anyone else. What I wanted was that stuff like this occurs, and you tend to demand proof, before you will accept the facts.
Now, JV is accused of a 'malfeasance', and he works for a competing magazine. That magazine has corrected the problem, but we will all remember what happened.
I claimed that someone formally associated with your magazine, once did something similar. Or was he working at TAS when it happened? I don't know, and it really doesn't matter, because it was the PRINCIPLE of the thing that is important. I don't expect anything out of this, I just felt that JV needed a fair shake, since real manufacturers know that this sort of thing has gone on, at least sporadically, since the beginning of audio publication.
For example, I was there when an editor of a now defuct audio publication demanded that we GIVE him a Dennesen JC-80. He did not want to pay an accomodation price, he demanded it for free. It was too much for me at the time and I told him off. Here I was in his multimillion dollar house with his fancy car in the driveway, and he was demanding a free unit from some struggling audio people. He and I still remained friends after this incident, but he didn't get a free unit. He continued to remind me, however, that he 'could' have helped us further, if we had given him a free unit. That's the price of business, folks! (sometimes)
Mr. Curl? Nothing to say to me?Considering the actual facts as I recalled them in a message just above, about which you could easily have asked me about any number of times in all these years, you seem amusingly bent on sticking to your story and throwing cow pies at the passing parade hoping for the best.
"I am not trying to make a problem with 'Stereophile', you, or anyone else," you say.
But you have incorrectly smeared me, Mr. Curl. I am in business now. Words count. And you don’t seem to be taking any responsibility for your smear, other than justifying it to JA by defending another reviewer who’s in the crapper.
In another thread in July that I was unaware of you say, "... a few years ago, a former 'Stereophile' reviewer refused to return the line cords or cables that my former business partner, Bob Crump sent in for review. “
A “few years ago”, Mr. Curl? Can you be accused of “setting the scene” with florid lighting? That was sixteen years ago Mr. Curl! I'm actually fairly pleased you had to reach back that far to find some of the icky sticky substance you're trying to peddle—and not take responsibility for.
You continued, “Bob tried over and over, and was quite ticked off by the situation." Then you aggressively engaged JA regarding accountability, mentioned it again in a thread above, even while now mewling, “I’ve said too much.” Shades of Plamegate.
I agree that even though it was a real long ago, what's right is right and that's fine with me. But if Bob had ever ONCE after saying "keep'em and use'em" told me he wanted his power cords back, I would have sent them. Now call me a liar, Mr. Curl.
"I talked to that very guy at the 'Stereophile' party at CES. Should I have jumped all over him about it, or just let it go, as I have seen other examples like this over the years?"
Mr. Curl, where’s you backbone? I’d be ashamed to have a guy like you as a friend if that’s the way you deal with what you perceive as difficult matters! Added to your story about a wealthy reviewer demanding a free preamp—as you say, it doesn’t matter, it’s the principle, hah!--you said you remained friends with him! Doesn’t take much to be your friend, I guess, Mr. Curl. But I wonder how I got on your enemies list?
I always treated you with respect, I thought. I’ve been doing good business with Scull Communications for over two years now, and I don’t believe there’s anyone left out there who hasn’t taken the time, if they wanted to, to tell me off between the time I left Stereophile and when I opened my own company.
Fair enough. It’s a little late, but stand up and attack me like a man instead of backstabbing me with a misinformed 16-year-old no-facts innuendo “complaint” used as a device to attack JA while mewling in your reply that you’re sorry it got this far. Man, the hypocrisy is giving me hiccups. Just how did it get this far, Mr. Curl? Why, because you keep pushing it, of course, as I have quoted you above and as JA has mentioned in other postings.
I wish you had said something that night at CES. I would have marched right over to Bob and straightened it out as is my way. But you didn't speak up; instead you "fought with yourself" (hah!) over it—I can just hear the internal conversation now—and tucked that little resentment in your back poopie pocket to use on a rainy day.
And I’ll always remember my conversations through the years with Bob Crump with great fondness, taking comfort that he was an outspoken guy who told me what he wanted me to know.
Alas, the same cannot be said of you, Mr Curl.
> I am not trying to make a problem with 'Stereophile', you, or anyone
> else. What I wanted was that stuff like this occurs, and you tend to
> demand proof, before you will accept the facts.
I am sorry you see my questions as demand for "proof," John. They
weren't meant as such. When I was offering last July you to get the
matter resolved and the question of restitution was concerned, I
thought it appropriate to ask you about the specific facts concerning
what happened: the value of the cables in question is hardly
irrelevant, for example, if they need to be paid for.
> I claimed that someone formally associated with your magazine, once
> did something similar. Or was he working at TAS when it happened? I
> don't know, and it really doesn't matter, because it was the
> PRINCIPLE of the thing that is important.
If you read Jonathan's post in this thread, you can see that the
cables were loaned to him when he was at TAS, which is why I have no
record of Stereophile being loaned these cables. It appears that
Jonathan persuaded Bob to let him hang on to them when he started
writing for Stereophile in the fall of 1993 and in the years since
then Bob never asked either Jonathan or me for the cables to be
returned. Despite your saying that it is the "PRINCIPLE of the thing
that is important," not the specific magazine, you presented this
matter both last June and again in this thread as involving
Stereophile magazine, and I felt that if that was indeed the case,
I was obliged to try to put things right.
Despite your protestations that "it really doesn't matter," it
obviously is still a live issue for you, John. Bob Crump can't be
compensated, obviously, but if you tell me what the dealer cost
of the pair of cables concerned was back in 1991, I will pay that
sum to charity on behalf of Stereophile. I hope you will agree that
my doing so will bring this matter to a close.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Now, I'm the 'bad guy' for pointing out that cables sometimes do not get returned, even if the company that made them still considers them of some value. I know that Bob wanted something for his cables, he told me himself. What about Nordost? Did they really want something for their (loaner) cables as well? Perhaps. Also, they might have taken exception to them being sold in the marketplace, because this might inhibit a potential retail sale for them. I don't know, but I will accept JV's explanation of what happened, just as I will accept JS's explanation as well. Why not, and why was JV's explanation not accepted here in the first place? Why one, and not the other?
My original input here was NOT to impune anyone, but create a more level playing field, since this sort of thing happens on occasion, I will leave it at that.
> Now, I'm the 'bad guy' for pointing out that cables sometimes do not
> get returned, even if the company that made them still considers them
> of some value.
No-one has said that you're the bad guy for saying this, John. I am
pointing out that the fact that you have now _twice_ publicly
impugned Stereophile's integrity on this forum for cables that were
loaned to a reviewer when he was at TAS, is misleading and defamatory.
I phoned you last year year to investigate this story the first time
you raised it, only for you to wave me off. And now I have offered you
a way of straightening the books, yet you appear to be waving me off
_again_.
> I know that Bob wanted something for his cables, he told me himself.
As I said, if you tell me what the dealer cost was in 1991, I will
donate that sum to charity. That way you can start sleeping at night
for the first time in, what, 14 years. If you refuse to tell me, then
I will still pay the charity -- the Southern Poverty Law Center, if
you need to know -- $200 and assume the matter is closed.
> What about Nordost? Did they really want something for their (loaner)
> cables as well?
I am told by a manufacturer that the reimbursement to Nordost was in
five figures. I have no idea if that is true or not.
> I don't know, but I will accept JV's explanation of what happened,
> just as I will accept JS's explanation as well.
Jonathan Valin has not offered any explanation, neither here or
anywhere else, to the best of my knowledge. His sole comment on the
subject to me in person was to call me a "fucker" in public at the
recent CES, apparently for knowing about the matter.
> why was JV's explanation not accepted here in the first place? Why
> one, and not the other?
It certainly looks to me as if Tom Martin's explanation has been accepted.
> My original input here was NOT to impune anyone, but create a more
> level playing field...
Yet impugne you did John, with gusto. You owe me a beer, I think.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"His sole comment on the subject to me in person was to call me a "fucker" in public at the recent CES, apparently for knowing about the matter."Well, now that we all know about this tawdry affair, I guess we are all "fuckers" too. I hope my wife and kids never find out. Oops, they live with me, they already know.
I'm a fucker!
Cables should be made to self destruct as soon as the review is over.
We have the technology...
Did someone say something about a cold beer?
Bob certainly complained about those cables a lot sooner than 14 years ago. Heck, I didn't start working with him till about 10 years ago. Still, so what?
> Bob certainly complained about those cables a lot sooner than 14
> years ago. Heck, I didn't start working with him till about 10 years
> ago. Still, so what?
Just that this was a long time ago John, and it has been bothering
you ever since. All I am saying is that despite you and Bob
complaining privately, neither of you did so to me, or to Jonathan
despite the many occasions we have met in person since 1993. Had you
done so, I would have resolved the matter.
You didn't want me to resolve the matter when you raised on the
Asylum last June, but given that it is still an issue for you, I
feel it should be resolved, in the manner I suggested in my postings
yesterday: given the sad fact that Bob is no longer with us, I will
send the SPLC a check for $200 and I assume that my doing so will be
the end of the matter.
I have been worrying about _why_ you or Bob did not want to raise the
matter with me, John. I hope you weren't concerned about retaliation
of any kind. Please be assured that I respect the fact that loan
equipment remains the property of the manufacturers and they have
every right to ask for it back when they need it back. If there
_are_ any manufacturers reading this who have equipment on loan to
Stereophile reviewers and who are nervous about requesting its
return, feel free to email me. I will gladly arrange for its return.
And as I said, John, you owe me a beer. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Instead of donating to charity, how about pitching in on (and attending) next year's pizza and beer party, the tradition of which was started by Bob Crump several years ago at CES? This year's party was held in the VMPS/Audience room at THE Show, where John Curl showed the prototype of the new Vendetta phono stage. I think Bob would welcome the idea and know John would be all for it. :-)
Best regards,
> Instead of donating to charity, how about pitching in on (and
> attending) next year's pizza and beer party, the tradition of
> which was started by Bob Crump several years ago at CES?
That's an excellent idea, Brian. Most appropriate. I'll still donate
the money to charity as promised, but will also contribute to the bar
bill at the 2008 CES Bob Crump Memorial party.
I hope that that by my doing so, all will be satisfied with the outcome.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Thank you, John! That's a really fine gesture on your part. I surely hope you and others from Stereophile can stop by for a slice and a brew and good cheer. As the time approaches I'll keep you posted on the venue. It would be on the second night of the show.
< < It would be on the second night of the show. > >Sorry, that night is taken. That's the night we have scheduled to bribe all of the reviewers with a night of cocaine and hookers.
Aw, shucks, Charlie! Will you attend anyway, I hope? :-)
Best regards,
Hey John,My Mercedes could use some work. I could surely use one of those donations at the moment! How bout it?!? (I'll buy the six pack)
(I just LOVE this stuff!!!!!)
Best leave it Brian, or we may never be invited to the 'Stereophile' party again. ;-)
It's obvious Atkinson was seeking some kind of victory and *his* choosing to divulge the reviewer's name only indicates just how desperate his pursuit of that goal.But then Atkinson hasn't exactly been putting on a classy performance here of late, and one would be near purblind to have not noticed that a persistent aspect of his debating style is the attempt to goat what he likely sees as his opponent into a spitting match, i.e. don’t be surprised if shortly he solicits you to put down your “crackpipe”.
this obsession of yours has become embarrassing.
> one would be near purblind to have not noticed that a persistent
> aspect of [Atkinson's] debating style is the attempt to goa[d]
> what he likely sees as his opponent into a spitting match, i.e.
> don’t be surprised if shortly he solicits you to put down
> your “crackpipe”.
I have known John Curl for almost 30 years and have enormous
respect for him as a design engineer. I even like him personally.
But that still doesn't mean that everything he says is correct.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: