| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
SSJVCmag said:
On 9/17/05 6:49 PM, in article , "surf" wrote: "SSJVCmag" wrote.. Dave.. 'who cares" is truly the pojnt... I know you have a clue about this sort of thing so could you please do The Right Thing (like several others) and just drop the crosspost on this newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess so that remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish and let it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses off except your fav... thanks ooops.... SSjcv - you forgot to remove your group! Thanks! You guys are GREAT! Dude, you're only making things worse. No one is complaining about crossposting but you. No one is sending the same message hundreds of times, while deceptively snipping the group from where he's posting but you. PS. I added your precious little NG so as to get this message through to you and your buddies, who are probably unaware of the fact that you're polluting other NGs with your stupid drivel. As some usenet icon (Lord Valve) uses to say: "No likee, no clickee!" When you stop, the crossposting will stop. Simple, really. Think about it, it's a refreshing thought. -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
SSJVCmag said:
Separate messages crossposted at 11:00 11:01 11:02 11:03 11:06 11:09 11:10 Such effort and trouble to force words where they're not wanted. Somebody PLEASE tell Clyde he really doesn't have to email 4 newsgroups every 60 sec or so, it's easier to just make sure he's only sending responses to the one newsgroup that the thread started in. With any luck this will ease it out of existance. The rest of you: thanks for trimming the crossposts! Dude, you're only making things worse. No one is complaining about crossposting but you. No one is sending the same message hundreds of times, while deceptively snipping the group from where he's posting but you. PS. I added your precious little NG so as to get this message through to you and your buddies, who are probably unaware of the fact that you're polluting other NGs with your stupid drivel. As some usenet icon (Lord Valve) uses to say: "No likee, no clickee!" When you stop, the crossposting will stop. Simple, really. Think about it, it's a refreshing thought. -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
SSJVCmag said:
"SSJVCmag" wrote in message The rest of you: thanks for trimming the crossposts! On 9/17/05 11:50 PM, in article , "Clyde Slick" wrote: Are you being effective yet? Are your activities increasimg or decreasing the amount of crossposts? I dare not say, I really wouldn't want you to feel you're out there all alone. Dude, you're only making things worse. No one is complaining about crossposting but you. No one is sending the same message hundreds of times, while deceptively snipping the group from where he's posting but you. PS. I added your precious little NG so as to get this message through to you and your buddies, who are probably unaware of the fact that you're polluting other NGs with your stupid drivel. As some usenet icon (Lord Valve) uses to say: "No likee, no clickee!" When you stop, the crossposting will stop. Simple, really. Think about it, it's a refreshing thought. -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" said:
"SSJVCmag" wrote in message .. . On 9/17/05 9:03 AM, in article , "John Atkinson" wrote: Whereever these questions lie on the line between "idiotic" and "sarcastic," John, sarcastic, idiotic, whatever, it's a waste of time outside of it's singular NG home and I know you have a clue about this sort of thing so could you please do The Right Thing (like several others) and just drop the crosspost on this newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess so that remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish and let it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses off except your fav... Thanks Stop crossposting yourself, asshole Dude, you're only making things worse. No one is complaining about crossposting but you. No one is sending the same message hundreds of times, while deceptively snipping the group from where he's posting but you. PS. I added your precious little NG so as to get this message through to you and your buddies, who are probably unaware of the fact that you're polluting other NGs with your stupid drivel. As some usenet icon (Lord Valve) uses to say: "No likee, no clickee!" When you stop, the crossposting will stop. Simple, really. Think about it, it's a refreshing thought. -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
"EddieM" wrote in message
(Chevododo) wrote: hey if making money off fraudulent ads is so important to Atkinson, why doesn't he pick up the $1million offered by Randi for demonstrating the shakti stones? Bitch and moan? No, I'm pointing, sneering, and ridiculing a fool, and apparently also his lickspittle side-kick fraud-facillitator 'dave', too. Just what in the world is your gripe Chevedovoododo? If someone tried the Shakti Stone tweak, found it to work in their system and decide to pay for it, what is it to you? It all hangs on what the word "work" means. Copper bracelets are said to work for some arthritus sufferers. If you're willing to accept that level of the meaning of the word "work", then you are willing to accept *anything* as working. IOW, you have no judgement. |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm not going respond in detail to Mr. Weil. He (as far as I know) has had
no relations with JA, has never attended a Stereophile Writer's Conference, etc, etc, etc. His blind support of JA seems more to because he dislikes me. His willingness to post a response, but not to hear the details of my story, shows this. Because JA is wealthy, "successful,," and holds an important position at an influential magazine, his point of view must necessarily be true, and opposing points of view false or misguided. What is undebatable is the change that occurred in Stereophile in the editorial shift from JGH to JA. What had been a magazine that told readers what they needed to know became one that told them what they wanted to hear. The belief in "high fidelity" was gradually discarded (as it has at most, but not all, other magazines) and replaced with a rainbow of opinions. The Web page damning his editorial actions almost perfectly mirrors my feelings about these matters. Most of my friends are intellectually honest. John Atkinson is neither a friend nor intellectually honest. Most of the people criticizing my views are dull, lacking wit or insight, the sort of people Dr. Edwin H. Land described in this way: "There are many scientists who, for all their marvelous training, are just plain dull. You sit with them and nothing is happening. They have been stultified somehow and the world is going by them." One other point, and I shall let this rest, unless you insist on arguing what is not debatable. Remeber Star Trek's "Squire of Gothos" episode? Spock faces Trelaine and delivers one of the great lines in the history of TV: "I object to you. I object to intellect without discipline. I object to power without contstructive purpose." I object to John Atkinson's lack of intellectual discipline. I object to Stereophile's failure to use its power for any constructive purpose. "dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:30:50 -0700, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: In the time I knew John Atkinson, I found it impossible to have any kind of intelligent discussion about anything with him. His points of view are fixed, and he is unwilling to consider any other point of view. Why? I don't know. It might be intellectual arrogance. I guess you are never going to forgive me for firing you as a Stereophile reviewer, are you Bill? Liar, liar, liar. I quit, for a number of reasons. (My disappointment with JA as editor was one of them, but not the most-significant.) Then, after the fracas over reviewing ethics, * you removed me from the Contributing Editors list (where I would otherwise have remained indefinitely, even after I stopped contributing). You did not fire me (unless you consider the removal a "firing"), however much you would like to think you did. Sounds like a firing to me. Because, if you had "quit", wouldn't you have demanded that your name be removed at that time? You still refuse to address the issue of why you refuse to have serious conversations with people. Hmmm, sounds like there are a bunch of issues that you have with the man. Nothing wrong with holding a grudge I guess, but thiis is a weak sort of indictment, since it *sounds* like a factual charge, but really, when you look closely, it's just somebody who doesn't like somebody else saying something pretty subjective about that somebody. * In attempting to be honest with the readers, I publically broke a rule that John Atkinson privately encouraged all the reviewers to break, and which is still commonly broken. I'll supply details, if anyone is interested. I, for one, am not. During the last Stereophile Writer's Conference I attended, the question came up of why the Apogee Divas, which had gotten rave reviews from Arnis Balgalvis, and which most of the rest of us thought very highly of, had never appeared in Recommended Components. His reply? "I don't like them." That would be a damning indictment if it were true, Bill. Except that it's _not_ true. Following its review in August 1988 by Arnie, the Diva _was_ featured in "Recommended Components." See, for example, the April 1989 issue of Stereophile, Vol.12 No.4, p.99, where it heads the list of Class A loudspeakers. Then why I do remember it so well? (Yes, yes, yes...) Any other Stereophile reviewers out there who were at the meeting? It's not true BECAUSE the speakers actually made the list. I can see someone making a sarcastic comment like that though - and someone who already had a axe to grind taking it as a literal statement though. By the way, an audio tape was made of the meeting. Does it still exist? Who cares? The speaker was promptly put on the list, so the behavior that you claim was either a joke *or* irrelevant. |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck wrote: I object to John Atkinson's lack of intellectual discipline. I object to Stereophile's failure to use its power for any constructive purpose. Both in your _opinion_, Bill, and I have no objection to you holding such opinions and expressing them. Why should I? What I object to is your spreading of falsehoods about things I am supposed to have done and your dissemination of false rumors about, for example, my purported lack of academic qualifications. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
"William Sommerwerck" said:
What is undebatable is the change that occurred in Stereophile in the editorial shift from JGH to JA. What had been a magazine that told readers what they needed to know became one that told them what they wanted to hear. The belief in "high fidelity" was gradually discarded (as it has at most, but not all, other magazines) and replaced with a rainbow of opinions. At the risk of being flamed to death (Hi, SSJVCmag!), part of why this happened may well be the relative "perfect" state that music reproduction reached as far back as the eighties. (I'm still listening to my '80s Maggies and they still sound good, my amplifier design could have been from that period as well, and it still sounds good). After all, when there's little to gain in the technical department, there's little to write about. -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerdork said: His willingness to post a response, but not to hear the details of my story, shows this. Because JA is wealthy, "successful,," and holds an important position at an influential magazine, his point of view must necessarily be true, and opposing points of view false or misguided. You are a veritable volcano of self-pity. |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerdork said: Most of the people criticizing my views are dull, lacking wit or insight, The bits you've posted on RAO fit that description perfectly. In addition, you're in love with the sound of your own voice and you seem oblivious to the concerns of the non-elite who don't get access to the best new products for free. |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 04:27:27 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: I'm not going respond in detail to Mr. Weil. He (as far as I know) has had no relations with JA, has never attended a Stereophile Writer's Conference, etc, etc, etc. His blind support of JA seems more to because he dislikes me. This is untrue. I know you about as much as I know Mr. Atkinson. What *is* true is that I have no relations with JA. I subscribed to the magazine for a sum total of a year back in the middle to late 90s (96 I believe). I haven't read a Stereophile in probably 5 years, nor did I read very many of them in the early days. What is also true is that I don't really remember any of your reviews, so I have no idea about your audio philosophy, and it's hard His willingness to post a response, but not to hear the details of my story, shows this. Because JA is wealthy, "successful,," and holds an important position at an influential magazine, his point of view must necessarily be true, and opposing points of view false or misguided. Untrue. I was just pointing out that you seem to have an axe to grind. It's pretty clear from your postings. I think it IS annoying for former employees to air their dirty laundry in public. To me, it's a bit unseemly. So I commented. But Bill, it's not because I "dislike" you. On the contrary, I don't have enough exposure to you to form any opinion, although I must say that you are rapidly making it pretty easy for me TO dislike you. What is undebatable is the change that occurred in Stereophile in the editorial shift from JGH to JA. I don't doubt that at all. What had been a magazine that told readers what they needed to know became one that told them what they wanted to hear. The belief in "high fidelity" was gradually discarded (as it has at most, but not all, other magazines) and replaced with a rainbow of opinions. That could very well be the case as well. Of course, one could argue that the 90s and 00s are a far different time than the 60s, for better or worse. The Web page damning his editorial actions almost perfectly mirrors my feelings about these matters. Most of my friends are intellectually honest. John Atkinson is neither a friend nor intellectually honest. Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Most of the people criticizing my views are dull, lacking wit or insight, the sort of people Dr. Edwin H. Land described in this way: "There are many scientists who, for all their marvelous training, are just plain dull. You sit with them and nothing is happening. They have been stultified somehow and the world is going by them." Once again, you are entitled to your opinion. One other point, and I shall let this rest, unless you insist on arguing what is not debatable. Remeber Star Trek's "Squire of Gothos" episode? No, I don't. Spock faces Trelaine and delivers one of the great lines in the history of TV: "I object to you. I object to intellect without discipline. I object to power without contstructive purpose." Bill, I knew Spock and you're no Spock chuckle. Seriously, YOUR discipline has been lacking in this post. You let emotion inform your opinion. I never denigrated you nor showed any antipathy toward you and yet you ascribe motives to me that are non-existent. I *will* go out on a limb and say something pretty personal to you. You're sounding like a little kid whose ball has been snatched from his arms. Sorry to have to say that, but that's the tone that you are now setting. I object to John Atkinson's lack of intellectual discipline. I object to Stereophile's failure to use its power for any constructive purpose. J'accuse! PS, here's a direct question for you. If you "quit", why did you allow your name to stay on the masthead? It sounds more to me that you quit in your mind, not in any substantive way (and no, I have no idea about the ethical storm that you and JA have mentioned). Frankly, looking at it from the outside, it sounds like it was a passive-aggressive quitting/firing on BOTH sides. |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 09:40:01 -0500, dave weil
wrote: I'm not going respond in detail to Mr. Weil. He (as far as I know) has had no relations with JA, has never attended a Stereophile Writer's Conference, etc, etc, etc. His blind support of JA seems more to because he dislikes me. This is untrue. I know you about as much as I know Mr. Atkinson. What *is* true is that I have no relations with JA. I subscribed to the magazine for a sum total of a year back in the middle to late 90s (96 I believe). I haven't read a Stereophile in probably 5 years, nor did I read very many of them in the early days. What is also true is that I don't really remember any of your reviews, so I have no idea about your audio philosophy, and it's hard finishing the part that was accidentally edited out of this paragraph: ....to determine your real views based on my readings of your sporadic posts here on the internet. |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
"SSJVCmag" wrote in message ... "SSJVCmag" wrote in message ... Well, no, the thread's singularly and appropriately back on RAO where you it started. That's fine. That's how things work. If you have some deep-seated need to keep crossposting to people elsewhere (who as we've mentioned, never had, and still don't have, any interest in this thread) then that's telling. On 9/18/05 12:49 AM, in article , "Clyde Slick" wrote: you don't speak for anyone but yourself. Never said different. Yes you did! At any rate, I cross to RAP, cause I beleive that is where you read and post from. I'm talking to YOU If you want to stop, its ok with me. Just write off RAO You really should read my posts before trying to respond to them. Makes you look awake. You really shouldn't be crossposting... It's naughty! I've been doing nothing but trying to minimise it. Besides, a guy I've been corresponding with on a RAO thread says so! Well, well, well, you actually know how to correspond by email. you should have tried that rather than crossposting your complaints to four groups!! Its rather boosrish to crossposto four groups for the purpose of compalining about someone elses's crossposting. |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... It all hangs on what the word "work" means. Copper bracelets are said to work for some arthritus sufferers. If you're willing to accept that level of the meaning of the word "work", then you are willing to accept *anything* as working. IOW, you have no judgement. see www.pcabx.com for a minimalist definition of "work". |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerdork said:
Note that this is Mr. Middius's idea of "wit". I'm just laughing my ass off. How terribly clever! Most of the people criticizing my views are dull, lacking wit or insight, The bits you've posted on RAO fit that description perfectly. Lacking wit, perhaps. Lacking insight, no way. Of course, what constitutes insight might be a matter of opinion. But I think I know it when I see it. In addition, you're in love with the sound of your own voice... Most posters are, as are you... and you seem oblivious to the concerns of the non-elite who don't get access to the best new products for free. Excellent point! Glad you brought it up. Because I am not a member of the "elite", and I am _not_ oblivious to the concerns of those who don't have huge amounts of money to throw around on audio equipment. I haven't reviewed audio equipment for any magazine in more than a dozen years. (I've recently done some record reviews for John Sunier's Website.) I never had "access to the best new products for free", though I did keep several items, with the manufacturer's approval -- and at John Atkinson's encouragement. * This included two Shure surround decoders (one of which I eventually sold -- the second of which remains in my system), the JVC XP-A1010 ambience synthesizer (which I also have and use), the Stax Lambda Pro 'phones, T-1 hybrid amplifier, & ED-1 equalizer), a pair of Yamaha HD-1 headphones (which they didn't want back for "sanitary" reasons) -- and a pair of Beyer or Sennheiser headphones (I forget which), which were the cause of JA "firing" me. One of my arguments in favor of more-rational testing (and this will no doubt surprise Arny Krueger) is that I was bothered that expensive amplifiers and fancy accessories did not necessarily result in better sound. My suggestions to implement test procedures -- both in the listening room and at the lab bench -- that would give a better idea of what products "really" sound like were, of course, instantly rejected. At least as far as I was concerned, John never heard an idea from me he didn't instantly dislike. Perhaps John treats other people differently. (And there are people who immediately dislike me on meeting me.) But I've never met anyone who was utterly defenive about everything. No one. Not even remotely. * This is the "dirty little truth" the publishers of underground magazines don't want you to know. John explicitly told all of us that, if we found a product of reference quality, we should try to hang onto it, so we could do a better job of judging future products. Great idea. But he never discussed the ethics of the issue -- should we actually buy the product? (Reviewers' prices generally run 45% to 50% off list, but that's still a lot of money for many items.) Should we get an "extended loan" (which usually results in the reviwer ultimately owning the product)? The fact is that many reviewers have products they never paid a red cent for. Even when they buy the product, it's at accomodation price, and they can sometimes sell it for more than paid for it -- or at much less of a loss than if they'd paid retail. The question of reviewing ethics is, to me, a sticky one, and if you want to publically discuss it, I'm game. |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick wrote:
Its rather boosrish to crossposto four groups for the purpose of compalining about someone elses's crossposting. Yes, Johnny has been doing this for years. Rather hypocritical, no? |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick wrote:
If you're willing to accept that level of the meaning of the word "work", then you are willing to accept *anything* as working. IOW, you have no judgement. see www.pcabx.com for a minimalist definition of "work". Hahaha. l.o.l.! |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
George's dildo wrote :
Its rather boosrish to crossposto four groups for the purpose of compalining about someone elses's crossposting. "I hope nobody died from bad spelling and mangled syntax." \Art "George's Dildo" Sackman\ :-) |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dr. Dolittle said: Its rather boosrish to crossposto four groups for the purpose of compalining about someone elses's crossposting. Yes, Johnny has been doing this for years. Rather hypocritical, no? It's the frenziedness of his attack that puts me off. |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
One of the most oft repeated mantras of the subjective enterprise is that
even a small change in a system can make a great difference. Which means by definition that all of the mag reviews are of no benefit to readers because they can't duplicate the system and listening context and sound sources used in the article. Further, it is oft said that several bits of gear was swapped in and out during the listening period, which makes an informed consumer choice based on the article even more remote. One more point, who reviews the reviewers that the reader may know where on the tinear scale they fall? |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck wrote: This is the "dirty little truth" the publishers of underground magazines don't want you to know. John explicitly told all of us that, if we found a product of reference quality, we should try to hang onto it, so we could do a better job of judging future products. That is correct. Reviewers cannot produce meaningful results in a vacuum, whether they work for "underground" magazines or mainstream magazines. Great idea. But he never discussed the ethics of the issue -- should we actually buy the product? (Reviewers' prices generally run 45% to 50% off list, but that's still a lot of money for many items.) Should we get an "extended loan" (which usually results in the reviewer ultimately owning the product)? Good grief, how selective _is_ your memory, Bill. This subject has been discussed at length with my writing team, at writers' conferences, in person, at "Ask the editors" sesions at shows, even in the pages of the magazine. There are three things that can happen when a Stereophile reviewer has finished with a component. In order of frequency, they a 1) return it, 2) arrange a long-term loan for reference (with the clear understanding that it remains the manufacturer's property); 3) buy it. What don't you grasp about this policy, Bill (which was in operation when you worked for me)? John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Your expectations of reviews are unrealistic."
Not at all, as I expect nothing of any value from them, except as one may learn of new gear. What the reviewer concludes as to merits of "sound" etc. have no value for reasons mentioned. The whole "audition" process has no reference by which to make an informed conclusion about anything but that the entertainment value of the articles is one of it's selling points for some people. |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lionel" wrote in message ... George's dildo wrote : Its rather boosrish to crossposto four groups for the purpose of compalining about someone elses's crossposting. "I hope nobody died from bad spelling and mangled syntax." \Art "George's Dildo" Sackman\ I know how to spell, I just can't type. You, OTOH, don't know how to spell. |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick a écrit :
I know how to spell, I just can't type. You, OTOH, don't know how to spell. "boosrish" LOL ! |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick a écrit :
I know how to spell, I just can't type. You, OTOH, don't know how to spell. "yalmake" LOL ! |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lionel" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick a écrit : I know how to spell, I just can't type. You, OTOH, don't know how to spell. "yalmake" LOL ! Try "ENGLISH" !!! LOL!! |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
In , Clyde Slick wrote :
"Lionel" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick a écrit : I know how to spell, I just can't type. You, OTOH, don't know how to spell. "yalmake" LOL ! Try "ENGLISH" !!! LOL!! "boosrish" :-) |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
"SSJVCmag" wrote in message ... On 9/18/05 12:25 AM, "Clyde Slick" wrote: Right now, I'm crossing it to rec.audio.pro for a specific purpose. I am talking to you, and that is where I believe you reside. We all post many places. I agree that its best to keep threads where they start and belong. This 'specific purpose' is one of mere intended annoyance and tantrum-throwing. Nothing to do with anything else. The specific purpose is to defy your request, until you learn how to proeprly offer it. You removed two other groups from the headers, and I left those off. Hey, when you leave RAO off the header, I'll stop responding altogether. Umm... Big Question: Why should I leave RAO off of a RAO-only posting response? Duh, because your purpose is to get me to stop responding. Since you come form RAP, thAt is where I am responding to. But you have been too stupid, for too long, to have figured that out. Slick, you're really in need of a life here, not to mention the Fun Club Guys of RAO. But then that's what you're all about over here. Let's try a simple scenario... Like one where you stop whimpering about crossposting. A SomeDolt suddenly takes a thread off of RAO and while in a depressive swing bulks it across 4 NG's that don't care. B SomeOne Else, not knowing WHICH NG the thread actually BELONGS on, shoots back a request to maybe check them crossposts that showed up allasudden. C (now here's the hip part... The part where things go WELL) Somebody on the originating NG says back "Oh hey , that's a RAO thread..." D And -poof- Nice People Everywhere know to repond there and RAO folks take a peek and realise there's this crosspost mess in the used-ta-be RAO thread and .Boom. No More Problems. If you stopped your own crosspostng, you would get fewer crossposted responses. Its not what you ask for that is objectionable. It is how you asked for it. It's a lot like giving way to someone on walking agaihnst you on a thin sidewalk... "Scuse me... Pardon me" No huhu It's tough I know but that's how folks over 10 solve this sort of thing. well, we are still butting heads here. I told you how you can stop it. I am amusid by your pigheadedness. |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
"SSJVCmag" wrote in message ... On 9/18/05 11:17 AM, in article , "Clyde Slick" wrote: Well, well, well, you actually know how to correspond by email. Well DUH Einstein. (How many posts did it take him to catch that one?) That you managed to drag the discovery of what the originating NG was this far is a real tribute to your talents there. (Pause for gloved applause) But then, if I'm participating in this thread at RAO, it's origin, why might YOUR responses still be flopping down as a crosspost in additional places? Maybe you should check your system and see that it's not adding involuntary destinations to your responses. You are an idiot. I already told you waht I am doing and hwy I am doing it. you should have tried that rather than crossposting your complaints to four groups!! After a ream of this crap being flung around those groups interminably, my ONE POST is worthy of that sort of attention? Wow... One post?? learn to count, buddy. Its rather boosrish to crossposto four groups for the purpose of compalining about someone elses's crossposting. In a word, no... Not any more than using a PA system to ask who, I na large group, might have lost a wallet. If you don't know WHERE the problem started, you ask nicely of the GROUP. you addressed me in particular, if you want to talk off group, and prevent poted and/or crosspsoted replies, send your request by email. |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck wrote:
This is the "dirty little truth" the publishers of underground magazines don't want you to know. John explicitly told all of us that, if we found a product of reference quality, we should try to hang onto it, so we could do a better job of judging future products. That is correct. Reviewers cannot produce meaningful results in a vacuum, whether they work for "underground" magazines or mainstream magazines. Great idea. But he never discussed the ethics of the issue -- should we actually buy the product? (Reviewers' prices generally run 45% to 50% off list, but that's still a lot of money for many items.) Should we get an "extended loan" (which usually results in the reviewer ultimately owning the product)? Good grief, how selective _is_ your memory, Bill. This subject has been discussed at length with my writing team, at writers' conferences, in person, at "Ask the editors" sesions at shows, even in the pages of the magazine. There are three things that can happen when a Stereophile reviewer has finished with a component. In order of frequency, they a 1) return it, 2) arrange a long-term loan for reference (with the clear understanding that it remains the manufacturer's property); 3) buy it. What don't you grasp about this policy, Bill (which was in operation when you worked for me)? Perhaps I have a convenient case of selective memory, no doubt contracted sometime when I was in your presence. |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Signal" wrote in message
... "William Sommerwerck" emitted : * This is the "dirty little truth" the publishers of underground magazines don't want you to know. John explicitly told all of us that, if we found a product of reference quality, we should try to hang onto it, so we could do a better job of judging future products. Great idea. But he never discussed the ethics of the issue -- should we actually buy the product? (Reviewers' prices generally run 45% to 50% off list, but that's still a lot of money for many items.) Should we get an "extended loan" (which usually results in the reviwer ultimately owning the product)? The fact is that many reviewers have products they never paid a red cent for. Even when they buy the product, it's at accomodation price, and they can sometimes sell it for more than paid for it -- or at much less of a loss than if they'd paid retail. The question of reviewing ethics is, to me, a sticky one, and if you want to publically discuss it, I'm game. Two points here Bill... Firstly, if the policy is so objectionable why did *you* accept products this way? Secondly, what is wrong with "..if we found a product of reference quality, we should try to hang onto it, so we could do a better job of judging future products."? It might be considered a perk of the job, but the goal you outlined is to benefit the reviewing process. Isn't this in the best interests of the contributors and readers of the magazine? You're reading something into what I wrote that I never intended. I never said the "policy is ... objectionable", I said that reviewing ethics were a sticky issue. Nor did I every suggest that reviewers shouldn't hang on to products for reference. Quite the opposite. Even JA agrees with me. It is common knowledge that reviewers often keep review samples indefinitely without paying for them. |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerdork said: What don't you grasp about this policy, Bill (which was in operation when you worked for me)? Perhaps I have a convenient case of selective memory, no doubt contracted sometime when I was in your presence. So aliens ate your brain? G |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
cmndr[underscore]george[at]comcast[dot]net says... Chevdoborg whined: Right, he just includes and endorses idiotic fraudulent stuff in his magazine. Ooh! I'll bet that makes you so darned mad! You wish. I know. It makes me laugh You're not laughing, 'borg. You're screeching in pain. I can tell by the purple color of your pimply face. Ad hominems won't make shakti stones work, either. You see when I ridicule jackasses like you, it's not ad hominem, it's because you have the nerve to defend fraud. The only ridiculing you are capable of doing is ad hominem insult, which doesn't amount to jack ****. Let's spell it out just to rub it in your face. Shakti Stones don't work. If they did, John Atkinson or anyone else could collect $1million by demonstrating them working. Since nobody has collected the $1million, Shakti Stones don't work. What DOES work is selling shakti stones to gulliable fools like George M. Middius. In fact, you've displayed such stupidity, I'd be surprised if you hadn't bought a second pair of shakti stones after you decided the first pair wasn't working well enough. In critical thinking nomenclature, it's called a Sunk Cost Fallacy - once a person invests a considerable chunk of change on something worthless, there is an inclination to invest more in the item in an attempt to extract some worth from it. The early days of microcomputers relied heavily on the sunk cost fallacy by selling $3000 computers to people who soon realized what a useless device they had purchased, so they bought add-ons and software trying to make it worthwhile. But at least they weren't being defrauded by being sold computers that ran on magic. |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:19:41 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: "Signal" wrote in message .. . "William Sommerwerck" emitted : * This is the "dirty little truth" the publishers of underground magazines don't want you to know. John explicitly told all of us that, if we found a product of reference quality, we should try to hang onto it, so we could do a better job of judging future products. Great idea. But he never discussed the ethics of the issue -- should we actually buy the product? (Reviewers' prices generally run 45% to 50% off list, but that's still a lot of money for many items.) Should we get an "extended loan" (which usually results in the reviwer ultimately owning the product)? The fact is that many reviewers have products they never paid a red cent for. Even when they buy the product, it's at accomodation price, and they can sometimes sell it for more than paid for it -- or at much less of a loss than if they'd paid retail. The question of reviewing ethics is, to me, a sticky one, and if you want to publically discuss it, I'm game. Two points here Bill... Firstly, if the policy is so objectionable why did *you* accept products this way? Secondly, what is wrong with "..if we found a product of reference quality, we should try to hang onto it, so we could do a better job of judging future products."? It might be considered a perk of the job, but the goal you outlined is to benefit the reviewing process. Isn't this in the best interests of the contributors and readers of the magazine? You're reading something into what I wrote that I never intended. I never said the "policy is ... objectionable", I said that reviewing ethics were a sticky issue. So, when you said "dirty little secret", we're supposed to think you meant something other than "objectionable"? Nor did I every suggest that reviewers shouldn't hang on to products for reference. Quite the opposite. Even JA agrees with me. It is common knowledge that reviewers often keep review samples indefinitely without paying for them. Yes, it's common knowledge, not a "dirtly little secret" that " the publishers of underground magazines don't want you to know". |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote: "SSJVCmag" Do you understand that the vast majority of people who read RAO do NOT spam your newsgroup, therefore all of your myriad posts are, in fact, spam to RAO for the vast majority of us? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Are newbie questions welcomed here? | Pro Audio | |||
| Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
| Questions, questions, questions | Audio Opinions | |||
| update on DAW PC questions (long) | Tech | |||
| Seven Questions + | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
