|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.100.227.202
In Reply to: Characteristics of consumer-oriented audio publications posted by Avocat on March 20, 2007 at 09:37:07:
You got JA to respond. Feel better now? Guess it's time to threaten to cancel your subscription and dig out those issues of The Audio Critic for re-reading. You just don't get it, do you?
Follow Ups:
"Your troll post finally paid off -You got JA to respond. Feel better now? Guess it's time to threaten to cancel your subscription and dig out those issues of The Audio Critic for re-reading. You just don't get it, do you?"- - But I enjoy reading Sterephile. I don't want them to cancel my subscription.
Then what exactly is your agenda with this post? If you were honestly just trying to convince JA to make changes to Stereophile, it could have been done by contacting him directly. Nope, you've got some other motivation... I smell troll.Why don't you just head over to The Audio Critic site? I think you'll like it there. Link below.
In Reply to: Re: Well, your rambling troll post finally paid off... posted by Avocat on March 21, 2007 at 14:36:12:
"Then what exactly is your agenda with this post? If you were honestly just trying to convince JA to make changes to Stereophile, it could have been done by contacting him directly. Nope, you've got some other motivation... I smell troll. Why don't you just head over to The Audio Critic site? I think you'll like it there."
----------------------------------------------------------You don't like my opinions, so you want me to stop posting on Critics Corner and move over to Auto Critic? I don't think so, SF.
My initial note was a follow-on to the previous discussion of the differnces between the general policies of Consumers Report and those of current audio publications. My intent was to point out some of the underlying differences and suggest characteristics that might be expected in a user-friendly audio publication primarily devoted to helping and empowering its readers. SF, feel free to disagree with me, but don't accuse me of dishonesty.- My note expressed my own opinions, and concerns, about the matter.
What's my agenda? - Expressing my own views, eliciting some interesting discussion, and perhaps moving the general consensus in a slightly different direction. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I thought was generally expected on CC.) I obviously have little direct influence on the policies of SF, but it does seem that they follow the gist of such online discussions. Incidentally, I note that the opinions expressed in several of the follow-ups don't exactly conform to your opinions or JA's or to the SF surveys.
Jim
In the above post you state:"My intent was to point out some of the underlying differences and suggest characteristics that might be expected in a user-friendly audio publication primarily devoted to helping and empowering its readers"
But that's not what your ORIGINAL post articulated... in fact, the bulk of your original post comes off as a rant primarily aimed at Stereophile. Here are some excerpts from your post:
"Changes might include some or all of the following, relating generally to SF"
"Instead of eliminating components from the SF "recommended components" list three years after they were last reviewed, include a listing of other possible choices, including some reviewed in prior years"
"Also helpful would be what the good and less good features were, how the component compares to other possible choices in the same category, and what other alternatives may be available. Apparently, this suggestion has been considered and rejected by SF. To me, this suggests a truly snobbish attitude on the part of SF and a total disregard for the time and priorities of its readers."
I have not said that you're being dishonest, and I am not challenging your right to post in this forum. But I do question your motives. If it were known to you that some other editor from some other audio magazine posted here regularly... would you then direct your criticism at that other mag? In other words, your posts in this topic (which you started) seem like they are formulated to get a response from JA, NOT like a productive discussion at all. If you read Stereophile regularly, then you would know that it is not a publication that uses DBT in its reviews. Knowing this, you toss out completely unfounded claims like:
" I think that most readers would like to see at least some reports of blind testing IN SOME FORM..."Where do you get this information? You mean that YOU would like to see it. According to you, there are SCORES of disappointed Stereophile readers out there. Who/where are they?
Your biases seem to outshine any constructive influence your post might have had.
I, for one, hope that Stereophile stays just like it is... That doesn't prevent you from finding something you like better. More power to you!
Folks, the following relates to questions SF has raised about my honesty and integrity (I'm only a troll, in his opinion), not the substance of this discussion string. I this doens't interest you, don't waste your time following it. ---
SF, your note stated, first including excerpts from my previous note:
"My intent was to point out some of the underlying differences and suggest characteristics that might be expected in a user-friendly audio publication primarily devoted to helping and empowering its readers"
SF stated:
But that's not what your ORIGINAL post articulated... in fact, the bulk of your original post comes off as a rant primarily aimed at Stereophile. Here are some excerpts from your post:"Changes might include some or all of the following, relating generally to SF"
-----------------------------------Actually, here's what the first paragraph of my ORIGINAL post stated:
"Although I wouldn't want an audio review periodical published by the CR staff, a truly consumer-oriented audio publication would, in my view take a very different approach. Changes might include some or all of the following, relating generally to SF, of which I am a long-term subscriber:"
Since, as stated, I am a long-term subsriber to SF, and since Sf is the audio mag with the largest circulation, it's logical that my comments would relate primarily to SF. - My comments described my thoughts about the characteristics of a truly consumer/reader/subscriber-centered periodical (in contrast to one primarily concerned with circulation and advertising revenue), and it was logical that I explain the suggested changes with respect to SF, since that's the audio publication with the most publication, that most on this group are familiar with. (How in the world could I explain the characteristics of a consumer-oriented magazine without contrasting it with Stereophile?
SF stated:
"I have not said that you're being dishonest,.."You did the same thing, and you imputed my motives. - You stated that my purpose for posting this note was that I was trolling for the purpose of getting JA's reaction. - That was not my purpose.
SF stated:
"...and I am not challenging your right to post in this forum. But I do question your motives. If it were known to you that some other editor from some other audio magazine posted here regularly... would you then direct your criticism at that other mag? In other words, your posts in this topic (which you started) seem like they are formulated to get a response from JA,"In your opinion, of course....If other editors posted here reularly, I would not hesitate to criticise their publications.
SF then stated:
NOT like a productive discussion at all. If you read Stereophile regularly, then you would know that it is not a publication that uses DBT in its reviews. Knowing this, you toss out completely unfounded claims like:" I think that most readers would like to see at least some reports of blind testing IN SOME FORM..."
Where do you get this information? "
Where did I get the information? I got it from reading hundreds of notes from audiophiles posted on this and other audio discussion groups over the years. And also, from reading responses to my note posted on THIS discussion THIS week. (Did YOU read them, by the way, SF?
"Your biases seem to outshine any constructive influence your post might have had."As do yours....But we all have our own biases and opinions. - Why are you so intent of putting mine down? Why are you so particularly disturbed by my comments? In other words, it's not enough for you to call me a troll, you want me to go away, to get off the discussion group altogether! Could it possibly be because my note introduced some points and observations that you hadn't previously encountered?
Jim
I have not questioned your honesty or integrity...only people who know you can do that. I have questioned your motive. There is a difference. And yes, I have read the entire thread (sigh).I won't bother to quote any of your last post.
There is a certain belligerence in the tone of your posts that suggests (to me), that you have an axe to grind. If that is not the case, then I am mistaken. You may make of it what you will.
"Well, your rambling troll post finally paid off...You got JA to respond. Feel better now? Guess it's time to threaten to cancel your subscription ...."-- This is not questioning my integrity?
I don't believe so... but I guess variations in the meaning of the term "integrity" could make it appear so.Your integrity as what? A poster on an internet forum? An editor of an audio magazine? An auto mechanic? Schoolteacher? From what area of activity does this integrity arise?
To me, integrity is an evolving trait. Much like a person can come to trust another over time... these are traits that are built in the minds of people as they learn more about a person, not bestowed instantly or universally. I hope you understand what I mean.
SF when I said that you had a job waiting for you at Stereophile cleaing up after the editor, I meant it as a joke.
I know JA can pick and fight his own battles. It seems sometimes that people just want to call him out because they feel they can cajole him into responding, whether they actually have a point to make or not! I simply want to let those persons know that there are people on AA who don't appreciate that sort of trolling. I feel that JA's participation on the board is resource worth protecting... although it can be fun watching JA cooly shoot down some of the more pathetic attempts at getting his dander up.
Aaah, one of those hinden agenda thingies.ray
And the philosipher mused: "Am I playing with my cat or is my cat playing with me?"
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: