|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.196.176.121
In Reply to: Re: If Mr. Atkinson won't, I will posted by Charles Hansen on May 2, 2007 at 08:35:02:
"Yes, I'll be taking a look at the Gallo Ref 3s as soon as I clear some previous commitments off the deck. Of course, if JA commissioned more than one review a month from me and stiffed all those other reviewers, I might get there faster."This is what Mr. Philips wrote. You honestly mean to suggest that from this statement that Wes WILL be taking a look at the Gallo speakers as soon as he gets previous commitments off the desk I was supposed to interpret that he really was "thinking" about it, and that it was unreasonable for me to interpret that he had them for review? You mean that when a reviewer says that he WILL review them I should assume he does not have them, and is "thinking" about it?
"If you are so concerned about it, why don't you call up Gallo and ask them why they didn't supply the speakers for review?"
I could care less whether Gallo wants to supply something for review, or whether Stereophile wants to review them. I do care that people do what they say they are going do. But then I generally give words their ordinary meanings. I guess in the publishing world, which I am not a part of, when someone says they are going to do something, that does not mean they are going to do it. Apparently, in the manufacturing world too.
Though in my world when you say you are going to do something, you do it, else you look for another line of work. But in my life, representations mean something. Apparently, they do not in the manufacturing or the publishing worlds.
And given that this dialog does not involve you or your company, and you apparently have no personal knowledge as to any of the pertinent facts, I am not sure why you felt the need to leap in, other than you like to feud. Talk about getting on with your life.
Follow Ups:
< < I am not sure why you felt the need to leap in > >Stereophile is not perfect. Nor is any other magazine, audio related or not. Nor is anything nor anybody.
But to slime them with innuendo and false accusations like you have done is inexcusable. You have completely misinterpreted a remark that Wes made off the cuff. And even after the facts have been explained (repeatedly!) by JA, you keep on making silly and baseless accusations. I am sticking up for what I believe is right.
There are a million and one legitimate reasons why a review might be canceled (or postponed) after it was planned. You keep implying that the reasons are nefarious and that Stereophile is hiding something that should be exposed.
< < you apparently have no personal knowledge as to any of the pertinent facts > >
That is correct, but I have known JA for nearly 20 years. We've had our share of disagreements. But I have never known him to be anything less than honest, hard working, and honorable. And when he plainly states what the facts are, I believe him. End of story.
"But to slime them with innuendo and false accusations like you have done is inexcusable. You have completely misinterpreted a remark that Wes made off the cuff."I never slimed them with "innuendo." See above. And I did not misinterpret anything - I merely gave words their ordinary meaning. Further, taking time to read a post, write a response, and presumably reviewing that response, is hardly "off the cuff." Particularly if you are a writer.
"Stereophile is not perfect. Nor is any other magazine, audio related or not."
No kidding. But neither JA or Wes Philips has alleged that Wes did not mean what he wrote, or meant something else. I doubt either you or I are qualified to look beyond the "four corners" of his writings.
"There are a million and one legitimate reasons why a review might be canceled (or postponed) after it was planned. You keep implying that the reasons are nefarious and that Stereophile is hiding something that should be exposed"
And there are a million illegitimate reasons why a review might be canceled, which may have nothing to do with the magazine. Do I, as a reader and consumer, have a right to know this? If the reason is legitimate, then what is the harm in telling me what the reason is, as opposed to that it merely did not happen.
If one of your products garnered a good quote from a reviewer, at which time you promised a review sample to that reviewer, afterwhich the reviewer publically informed a reader that a review was forthcoming, would you then tell the reviewer that, sorry, no samples? If a manufacturer did that, do we, the reader and consumer, have a right to know this happened? If the process is transparent?
Did Gallo do this? I do not know. What I do know is that Wes appears to be a person who would not tell a reader he will do something unless he had authorization to do it, and he told a reader that he would review the speakers. I know that Gallo never forwarded a pair for review. That fact alone does not tell us very much.
As you write, there many legitimate reasons why a review does not happen. There are also illegitimate reasons why a review does not happen. The mere statement that Gallo never sent a sample, even though true, does not tell us, the reader and consumer, anything. I am not sure how Stereophile did anything wrong, assuming these facts, and I never intended to imply that it did.
Wow.
Well, in my world, people break agreements, and expect someone else to pay or cover for their mistakes, then shrug their shoulders as though breaking their word is no big deal. Apparently, that is a world in which you are satisfied. Feel better?
What a waste of time & energy!!!
put on their trousers and headed out to run Stereophile.
Bruce, should it read, put their trousers on over their head??
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: