"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson"
wrote If you were to read the article at
www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi you would see that
I accurately presented your thoughts, quoting from the
recordings at
http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate.

Who is surprised? John didn't present my full thoughts or
even a representative selection, just the few he wanted
to take pot shots at.

I didn't feel I was obliged to make your case for you, Mr.
Krueger. Nevertheless, I presented the case you made
against Stereophile in its entirety.

Since my entire opening comments were the entirety of the
case I made against Stereophile. and you obviously didn't
present my entire opening comments, that can't be true.

More specifically, the "Assweseeit" article only
presented 3 points from my opening comments and then
characteristically unfairly criticized those points as
followed: "However, as you can also hear, these
assertions were not supported or fleshed out.".

The recording makes it clear that I was correct in this
characterization, Mr. Krueger.

Actually, the recording makes it clear that my entire
opening comments weren't represented in your article, John.

In fact, those three points were the conclusion of my
introductory comments, which laid the basis for those 3
points.

Except that you didn't return to those 3 points in any
meaningful manner, Mr. Krueger.

The debate then transitioned to a question-and-answer
period. My comments during the rest of the debate were
dictated by the pleasure of the audience. Since they did
not ask me to flesh them out, I had no opportunity to do
so.

I guaranteed you, Mr. Krueger, that you could say
anything you wished to, Mr. Krueger.

Of course John you failed to do that when you aborted the
discussion on the hour, and gave so much time for a
gratuitous
declaration to your faithful supporter, Harry Lavo.

The audience certainly didn't prevent you from doing so,
again as can
be heard on the recording.

The audience said where they wanted to go. If my comments
were incomplete to anybody's way of thinking, they could
have brought it up at the time.

If you now regret not taking
full advantage of the occasion, that is hardly somethiung
for which I, or the audience, can be blamed.

In essence John, you're trying to escape taking
responsibility for your self-assigned role as moderator.

If you read both the Atkinson and Serinus articles, they
follow a common format. They start out with a few factual
comments about the HE2005 debate followed by far longer
discussions of the respective Stereophile writer's
philosophies.

Again, Mr. Krueger, Stereophile can hardly be expected to
make your case for you. That was up to you at the debate.

I was constrained by the debate's moderator, who you now
seem to be claiming acted irresponsibly, Mr. Atkinson.

If you had done so and again, it is incorrect for you to
complain that the aduience prevented you from doing so --
then that would have been reported on.

No, I blame it all on the debate's moderator, who was
clearly biased against me for and for you, Mr. Atkinson.

They both send the same message - Stereophile cannot
afford to give equal time to its critics, even within
the span of a tiny article.

I had thought that was exactly what I had done, by paying
for you to debate me at the Show, Mr. Krueger.

It's quite clear that the debate's moderator squandered my
time Mr. Atkinson, according to your claim that the debate
was mismanaged in such a away that I was not given time to
further explain my 3 points.

And in case, I fail to understand your complaint. You have
repeatedly on the newsgroups declared yourself the
"winner" of the HE2005 debate. In which case, why are you
now behaving as a "sore winner"? :-)

I think I did pretty well given that the debate's organizer
failed to provide the vital resources I needed to present my
opening comments, and was obviously biased against me, and
in favor of the other party in the debate.