"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om

Arny Krueger had stated (in message
) that he thought "there is
plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at
a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson."

However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such
"evidence," nor does he have any.

Sure I do, its right below.

Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd
"heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine
sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger
personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I
discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone
who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc.
is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst
a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited
by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy.

Atkinson, how is it damaging to say that you told someone the truth? How is
it damaging to suggest that the editor of a magazine is concerned about the
fact that his magazine's circulation is shrinking? It would appear to me
that it would be more damaging to your reputation if I said that you don't
care or are proud of it.

Here, then, are the paid circulation figures
for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures
submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class
mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12
issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November):

1994: 71,040
1995: 79,332
1996: 85,808
1997: 87,219
1998: 83,921
1999: 85,224
2000: 91,384
2001: 84,987
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668

Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's
circulation is shrinking?

Where's the beef? It seems to me that the facts are well known and say that
the magazine's circulation has been shrinking significantly for a number of
years.

Can't we all just agree on a perfectly obvious fact?