(Bruce J. Richman) wrote in message ...
Nousaine wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:
"tor b" wrote in message
. com...
Anyone think he pays retail? ;-)

Do you think anybody who writes for any audio magazine pays retail?

Actually that's one of the 'draws' of the trade. The 'writing' certainly
doesn't pay that well ....I'm hoping that Mr Atkinson will wil drop in
and tell use exactly what the Stereophile "writers" are paid....but the
availability of products at an industry accomodation price (roughly 65%
of MSRP) for review samples (read that as "used" pieces) is an
attraction. And the long-term loans are an even better deal.

Are you willing to divulge what the writers for Sound & Vision or
other magazines you write for are paid? For that matter, why should
any magazine editor or writer discuss their fees with the reading public?

I agree, Dr. Richman. I don't think this is something that needs to be
made public. Note that this is not the first time Tom Nousaine has referred
on r.a.o. to the subject of how much Stereophile's writers are paid.

But in regard to the initial question I'm guessing that Mr Atkinson
personally pays for very little. Either he gets products for long-term
loans OR his employer pays for all the other products at accomodation
pricing.

Does that differ from the practice in effect at other audio magazines?

I believe that Stereophile's policies are more rigorous than those at other
magazines, but I don't have hard information on the latter, of course.
Speaking for myself, I have personally purchased almost every piece of audio
equipment in my system, at the usual accommodation price, which tends to be
the price the dealer pays. This is not "corrupt," as the offensive thread
title states, and must be put against the need for reviewers to have more
than one reference available.

In my opinion there's nothing especially wrong with the practice but
readers should be aware of what it might be.

That same level of awareness should then apply to all audio magazines.

I agree.

And regarding all the silliness in this thread about my "Mercedes
collection," I don't see the relevance of this to audio. Surely how
I choose to spend my disposable income is up to me?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om

I believe that Stereophile's policies are more rigorous than those at
other magazines, but I don't have hard information on the latter, of
course.


Speaking for myself, I have personally purchased almost every
piece of audio equipment in my system, at the usual accommodation
price, which tends to be the price the dealer pays.

IME, this is pretty typical.


This is not
"corrupt," as the offensive thread title states, and must be put
against the need for reviewers to have more than one reference
available.

The corruption issue was yet another troll that was first recently
introduced here by the following post:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


No, just disgusted that you are corrupt and try to mingle with us.
You are CORRUPT!!! EVIL!!! Get it?

Howard, get the hell outta here. You're a moral degenerate.

It was quickly supported by Marc Phillips,who has in the past bragged here
about at least one gift of expensive equipment from a high end manufactuers.

Intersting how receiving *accomodations* is OK once John Atkinson *approves*
it...

IOW, just the usual RAO harassement and hypocrisy from the usual list of RAO
mental midgets.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om

I believe that Stereophile's policies are more rigorous than those at
other magazines, but I don't have hard information on the latter, of
course.


Speaking for myself, I have personally purchased almost every
piece of audio equipment in my system, at the usual accommodation
price, which tends to be the price the dealer pays.

IME, this is pretty typical.


There you go again trying to elevate yourself to the same level with Mr.
Atkinson. The fact that you got $5 discount on your obsolete Soundblaster is
not at all relevant.


This is not
"corrupt," as the offensive thread title states, and must be put
against the need for reviewers to have more than one reference
available.

The corruption issue was yet another troll that was first recently
introduced here by the following post:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


No, just disgusted that you are corrupt and try to mingle with us.
You are CORRUPT!!! EVIL!!! Get it?

Howard, get the hell outta here. You're a moral degenerate.

It was quickly supported by Marc Phillips,who has in the past bragged here
about at least one gift of expensive equipment from a high end
manufactuers.

Intersting how receiving *accomodations* is OK once John Atkinson
*approves* it...

IOW, just the usual RAO harassement and hypocrisy from the usual list of
RAO mental midgets.

In other words, all the people with better audio systems than your piece of
garbage.

I love seeing you stew in your own bitter juices...

Suffer, baby, suffer!

Margaret

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om

snipped for _clarity_:


This is not
"corrupt," as the offensive thread title states, and must be put
against the need for reviewers to have more than one reference
available.

The corruption issue was yet another troll that was first recently
introduced here by the following post:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


No, just disgusted that you are corrupt and try to mingle with us.
You are CORRUPT!!! EVIL!!! Get it?

Howard, get the hell outta here. You're a moral degenerate.

It was quickly supported by Marc Phillips,who has in the past bragged here
about at least one gift of expensive equipment from a high end manufactuers.

Intersting how receiving *accomodations* is OK once John Atkinson *approves*
it...

IOW, just the usual RAO harassement and hypocrisy from the usual list of RAO
mental midgets.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om

I believe that Stereophile's policies are more rigorous than those at
other magazines, but I don't have hard information on the latter, of
course.


Speaking for myself, I have personally purchased almost every
piece of audio equipment in my system, at the usual accommodation
price, which tends to be the price the dealer pays.

IME, this is pretty typical.


This is not
"corrupt," as the offensive thread title states, and must be put
against the need for reviewers to have more than one reference
available.

The corruption issue was yet another troll that was first recently
introduced here by the following post:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


No, just disgusted that you are corrupt and try to mingle with us.
You are CORRUPT!!! EVIL!!! Get it?

Howard, get the hell outta here. You're a moral degenerate.

It was quickly supported by Marc Phillips,who has in the past bragged here
about at least one gift of expensive equipment from a high end
manufactuers.

Could that be why Trotsky's foray failed?
Perhaps if he had offered them to Dave at manufacturer's cost?
The cabinetry was pretty nice, note.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
(Bruce J. Richman) wrote in message
...
Nousaine wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:
"tor b" wrote in message
. com...
Anyone think he pays retail? ;-)

Do you think anybody who writes for any audio magazine pays retail?

Actually that's one of the 'draws' of the trade. The 'writing' certainly
doesn't pay that well ....I'm hoping that Mr Atkinson will wil drop in
and tell use exactly what the Stereophile "writers" are paid....but the
availability of products at an industry accomodation price (roughly 65%
of MSRP) for review samples (read that as "used" pieces) is an
attraction. And the long-term loans are an even better deal.

Are you willing to divulge what the writers for Sound & Vision or
other magazines you write for are paid? For that matter, why should
any magazine editor or writer discuss their fees with the reading public?

I agree, Dr. Richman. I don't think this is something that needs to be
made public. Note that this is not the first time Tom Nousaine has
referred
on r.a.o. to the subject of how much Stereophile's writers are paid.


Well, Nousaine knows he's a loser but he cannot quite quantify how MUCH of a
loser he is. The fact that he's less of a loser than Krueger doesn't mean
much.

But in regard to the initial question I'm guessing that Mr Atkinson
personally pays for very little. Either he gets products for long-term
loans OR his employer pays for all the other products at accomodation
pricing.

Does that differ from the practice in effect at other audio magazines?

I believe that Stereophile's policies are more rigorous than those at
other
magazines, but I don't have hard information on the latter, of course.
Speaking for myself, I have personally purchased almost every piece of
audio
equipment in my system, at the usual accommodation price, which tends to
be
the price the dealer pays. This is not "corrupt," as the offensive thread
title states, and must be put against the need for reviewers to have more
than one reference available.


I wonder if the super exclusive and small outfits like Rockport and CTC
Builders, for example, have accomodation prices?

Howard Ferstler seems to be a good example of a reviewer whose equipment are
of such pedestrian quality that he has become everyone's audio joke. His
reviews are like judging Cabernets using his customary prune juice as
reference.

In my opinion there's nothing especially wrong with the practice but
readers should be aware of what it might be.

That same level of awareness should then apply to all audio magazines.

I agree.


Few readers are dense enough to be ignorant of the practice.

And regarding all the silliness in this thread about my "Mercedes
collection," I don't see the relevance of this to audio. Surely how
I choose to spend my disposable income is up to me?


Well, John...you know the answer. You are a winner in the world of audio.
You love it, you made it popular and you made it pay off. In the process you
have directly and indirectly created a lot of jobs, attracted capital to the
business - in other words, you've created something valuable and you got
compensated for it. That's the way our economy works and you are to be
applauded for your achievements.

This is in stark contrast to Krueger and Nousaine whose bitter rants on the
internet amount to ZERO economic, cultural or intellectual value. And our
economy has rewarded them accordingly. :-) What these audio losers have not
understood is that one needs a total package to succeed - brains,
personality and manners- to name a few.

Cheers,

Margaret

PS. Got your SLR yet? ;-)











John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote in message


This is in stark contrast to Krueger and Nousaine whose bitter rants
on the internet amount to ZERO economic, cultural or intellectual
value. And our economy has rewarded them accordingly. :-) What these
audio losers have not understood is that one needs a total package to
succeed - brains, personality and manners- to name a few.

Here's a typical Busenhalter non-bitter post on RAO:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=P7...u stin.rr.com

"Download the ABX comparator, and get free
access to "Arny's Legal Pre-teen Porno Drive" where all the files are more
than 3 years old winkwink and therefore perfectly "legal" winkwink."

Nuff said, right?

Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:

Well, Nousaine knows he's a loser but he cannot quite quantify how MUCH of a
loser he is.

Well, he is a major writer for Sound & Vision. You, on the
other hand, are an RAO big mouth who posts under an assumed
name. At least Nousaine is not afraid to use his real name.

Howard Ferstler seems to be a good example of a reviewer whose equipment are
of such pedestrian quality that he has become everyone's audio joke.

Only to RAO big mouths like you. Please remember that I have
also reviewed some pretty upscale hardware and my own stuff
has held its own with that stuff - or bested it.

Well, John...you know the answer. You are a winner in the world of audio.
You love it, you made it popular and you made it pay off.

Does this mean that he is a bigger, more respected wheel in
the business than Nousaine? (Here, I mean respected by the
engineering community and not by Stereophile groupies.) Give
me a break.

Howard Ferstler

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message


Does this mean that (Busenhalter) is a bigger, more respected wheel in
the business than Nousaine?

Absolutely, at least in his own mind.

Howard Ferstler wrote:


Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:

Well, Nousaine knows he's a loser but he cannot quite quantify how MUCH of
a
loser he is.

Well, he is a major writer for Sound & Vision. You, on the
other hand, are an RAO big mouth who posts under an assumed
name. At least Nousaine is not afraid to use his real name.


As Reagan used to say, "there you go again". Making assertions about others
that may well be false and, at the least, are not supported by any factual
evidence. How do you know whether the poster to whom you're responding is
using an alias or not? If you have evidence supporting your presumptuous
claim, present it. Otherwise, we can safely assume that you're just engaging
in one of your typical smear campaigns against a poster with whom you disagree.




Howard Ferstler seems to be a good example of a reviewer whose equipment
are
of such pedestrian quality that he has become everyone's audio joke.

Only to RAO big mouths like you. Please remember that I have
also reviewed some pretty upscale hardware and my own stuff
has held its own with that stuff - or bested it.

Well, John...you know the answer. You are a winner in the world of audio.
You love it, you made it popular and you made it pay off.

Does this mean that he is a bigger, more respected wheel in
the business than Nousaine? (Here, I mean respected by the
engineering community and not by Stereophile groupies.) Give
me a break.

Howard Ferstler









Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


How do you know whether the poster to whom
you're responding is using an alias or not?

Indeed, Busenhalter is a very common name in Transylvania.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


How do you know whether the poster to whom
you're responding is using an alias or not?

Indeed, Busenhalter is a very common name in Transylvania.



Busenhalter Transylvania:
zero Google hits

Krueger Transylvania
468 Google hits

The white pages for Romania indicates that there
are no Busenhalters listed in Cluj-Napoca, which is the
largest city in Transylvania. A further search indicated
that there are no lisitngs for Busenhalter in all of Romania.
I couldn't find any Krueger's in Romania, either.

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:

Well, Nousaine knows he's a loser but he cannot quite quantify how MUCH
of a
loser he is.

Well, he is a major writer for Sound & Vision.

There are NO major writers associated with that rag. None whatsoever. Your
statement just shows that you were a major failure as a librarian as well.

You, on the
other hand, are an RAO big mouth who posts under an assumed
name. At least Nousaine is not afraid to use his real name.


Yawn

Howard Ferstler seems to be a good example of a reviewer whose equipment
are
of such pedestrian quality that he has become everyone's audio joke.

Only to RAO big mouths like you. Please remember that I have
also reviewed some pretty upscale hardware and my own stuff
has held its own with that stuff - or bested it.


The best thing that can be said about you Howard is that your inability to
perform is balanced. :-) You are simply not qualified to give an opinion of
any audio equipment - except as a joke of course. Nothing testifies to that
more than the pile of allison junk in your trailer, the so called "reference
system".

Well, John...you know the answer. You are a winner in the world of audio.
You love it, you made it popular and you made it pay off.

Does this mean that he is a bigger, more respected wheel in
the business than Nousaine? (Here, I mean respected by the
engineering community and not by Stereophile groupies.) Give
me a break.

Howard Ferstler

Well , Nousaine is sort of Cesar Chavez of the audio world. The champion of
the tomato pickers who stood out because he learned to read and adopted the
cause of his people because he knew how sorry the rest of them were. Now go
help Arnii with the tomatoes, Howard!

Cheers,

Margaret


PS. Howard, you sound as potent as a neutered chihuahua - again.

(John Atkinson) wrote:



(Bruce J. Richman) wrote in message
...
Nousaine wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:
"tor b" wrote in message
. com...
Anyone think he pays retail? ;-)

Do you think anybody who writes for any audio magazine pays retail?

Actually that's one of the 'draws' of the trade. The 'writing' certainly
doesn't pay that well ....I'm hoping that Mr Atkinson will wil drop in
and tell use exactly what the Stereophile "writers" are paid....but the
availability of products at an industry accomodation price (roughly 65%
of MSRP) for review samples (read that as "used" pieces) is an
attraction. And the long-term loans are an even better deal.

Are you willing to divulge what the writers for Sound & Vision or
other magazines you write for are paid? For that matter, why should
any magazine editor or writer discuss their fees with the reading public?

I agree, Dr. Richman. I don't think this is something that needs to be
made public. Note that this is not the first time Tom Nousaine has referred
on r.a.o. to the subject of how much Stereophile's writers are paid.

But in regard to the initial question I'm guessing that Mr Atkinson
personally pays for very little. Either he gets products for long-term
loans OR his employer pays for all the other products at accomodation
pricing.

Does that differ from the practice in effect at other audio magazines?

I believe that Stereophile's policies are more rigorous than those at other
magazines, but I don't have hard information on the latter, of course.
Speaking for myself, I have personally purchased almost every piece of audio
equipment in my system, at the usual accommodation price, which tends to be
the price the dealer pays. This is not "corrupt," as the offensive thread
title states, and must be put against the need for reviewers to have more
than one reference available.

In my opinion there's nothing especially wrong with the practice but
readers should be aware of what it might be.

That same level of awareness should then apply to all audio magazines.

I agree.

And regarding all the silliness in this thread about my "Mercedes
collection," I don't see the relevance of this to audio. Surely how
I choose to spend my disposable income is up to me?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

How you spend your diposable is certainly your own personal business; but you
once implied that my purchase of a Corvette was less responsible because you,
Mr Atkinson, chose to spend your income on audio. I'd think that road should
run both ways.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
(John Atkinson) wrote:



(Bruce J. Richman) wrote in message
...
Nousaine wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:
"tor b" wrote in message
. com...
Anyone think he pays retail? ;-)

Do you think anybody who writes for any audio magazine pays retail?

Actually that's one of the 'draws' of the trade. The 'writing'
certainly
doesn't pay that well ....I'm hoping that Mr Atkinson will wil drop in
and tell use exactly what the Stereophile "writers" are paid....but the
availability of products at an industry accomodation price (roughly 65%
of MSRP) for review samples (read that as "used" pieces) is an
attraction. And the long-term loans are an even better deal.

Are you willing to divulge what the writers for Sound & Vision or
other magazines you write for are paid? For that matter, why should
any magazine editor or writer discuss their fees with the reading
public?

I agree, Dr. Richman. I don't think this is something that needs to be
made public. Note that this is not the first time Tom Nousaine has
referred
on r.a.o. to the subject of how much Stereophile's writers are paid.

But in regard to the initial question I'm guessing that Mr Atkinson
personally pays for very little. Either he gets products for long-term
loans OR his employer pays for all the other products at accomodation
pricing.

Does that differ from the practice in effect at other audio magazines?

I believe that Stereophile's policies are more rigorous than those at
other
magazines, but I don't have hard information on the latter, of course.
Speaking for myself, I have personally purchased almost every piece of
audio
equipment in my system, at the usual accommodation price, which tends to
be
the price the dealer pays. This is not "corrupt," as the offensive thread
title states, and must be put against the need for reviewers to have more
than one reference available.

In my opinion there's nothing especially wrong with the practice but
readers should be aware of what it might be.

That same level of awareness should then apply to all audio magazines.

I agree.

And regarding all the silliness in this thread about my "Mercedes
collection," I don't see the relevance of this to audio. Surely how
I choose to spend my disposable income is up to me?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

How you spend your diposable is certainly your own personal business; but
you
once implied that my purchase of a Corvette

Quit bragging, Nousaine. Even girls know that a Corvette will literally fall
apart if driven anywhere near its top speed for an extended period of time.
But then again, you have Krueger to follow behind you in his rusted up
minivan to pick up the parts that fall off. Ha hah! It only excels in
burnouts between traffic lights. The Corvette is simply a premature
ejeculation on wheels, just like its owners.

Cheers,

Margaret

In article ,
"Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote:

The Corvette is simply a premature
ejeculation on wheels, just like its owners.

LOL!

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote:

The Corvette is simply a premature
ejeculation on wheels, just like its owners.

LOL!

No envy present in these posts, none at all.

;-)

"Arny Krueger" said:

The Corvette is simply a premature
ejeculation on wheels, just like its owners.

LOL!

No envy present in these posts, none at all.

Drive a Citroen and no one will envy you.

;-)

Ack!

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news
"Arny Krueger" said:

The Corvette is simply a premature
ejeculation on wheels, just like its owners.

LOL!

No envy present in these posts, none at all.

Drive a Citroen and no one will envy you.

;-)

Ack!

I don't know about that. Citroen has made some nice cars over the years.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:25:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote:

The Corvette is simply a premature
ejeculation on wheels, just like its owners.

LOL!

No envy present in these posts, none at all.

Quite right.

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:25:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote:

The Corvette is simply a premature
ejeculation on wheels, just like its owners.

LOL!

No envy present in these posts, none at all.

Quite right.

Shhhh! Almost too subtle!

I heard two cuts from the new EC on the radio today. Something about
"judgment" and a bluesy thing with some heavy guitar that reminded me
how rarely I hear screaming guitar leads from our man.

Have you heard it yet? I'm hoping I have time Sunday to catch the show,
but it could be crowds and 100 degrees.

Stephen

"Arny Krueger" wrote:




"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote:

The Corvette is simply a premature
ejeculation on wheels, just like its owners.

LOL!

No envy present in these posts, none at all.

;-)

What's interesting is that most anti-corvette posters do not recognize the
qualities of the vehicle. It's a car for $45k where measured performance beats
anything less than 2-3 times that amount (I bought my 1st Corvette a '94, 6-spd
for $29,000) which costs less than practically any "luxury" vehicle.

Not only will the car top out at 170 mph (my 94,95 and 2001 models; as per Car
& Driver and I've driven the '95 @ 150+) but it will also return 29.6 mpg on a
road trip (overall mileage on a 1600 trip from my house to Duluth MN for the
BayFront Blues Festival) so its an economy car as well.

Parts falling off? In over 200k miles on these 3 cars. I've had exactly one
fuel pump fail. ONE. All three of these cars were driven year-round in
rust-belt conditions. It is true that in Dec 2003 I did acquire an SUV as well,
but until that time the Corvette's were the only vehicle in my household.

Let's talk about routine maintanence. The Corvette needs Mobile One to keep the
warranty in effect BUT the oil change interval on my 2001 Coupe is 15,000
miles. So the ONLY extra charge for owning/driving a Corvette is spending $800
to replace tires.

There's no extra cost for parts or parts falling off. Indeed I just checked
the brake pad linings on my 2001 and there's 30% of the pad life left after
60,000 miles. Sure most of those miles were highway; but so what.

Rotors? I've owned 3 Corvettes and not one ever needed new rotors, even the
1995 with 120,000 miles on the odometer.

I've owned (Chevy, Ford, Volvo, Saab, Buick, Honda, Acura) and driven several
dozens of vehicles and my experience is that Corvettes are the most reliable
cars I've ever driven or owned.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote:




"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote:

The Corvette is simply a premature
ejeculation on wheels, just like its owners.

LOL!

No envy present in these posts, none at all.

;-)

What's interesting is that most anti-corvette posters do not recognize the
qualities of the vehicle. It's a car for $45k where measured performance
beats
anything less than 2-3 times that amount (I bought my 1st Corvette a '94,
6-spd
for $29,000) which costs less than practically any "luxury" vehicle.

Interesting. Perhaps the reputation of the car is a leftover of previous
designs.
In the old days, the fiberglass body of the 'Vette was famous for loosening
up.
The engine was a big pushrod design that didn't have the longevity of a
comparable OHC import engine.
The noise level was high, and the ride was rough.
It was a pretty car, and it performed well, but it demanded sacrifices from
the owner.
OTOH, it was still far more maintainable than the Ferraris of the time.

But it's still not a very functional car, except in the limited of single
person transportation with minimal luggage.
It's a cop magnet, which is why I very seldom see them driven fast on the
road.
I pass them all the time in my '92 Subaru, which attracts no attention from
anybody.

(Nousaine) wrote in message
...
(John Atkinson) wrote:
regarding all the silliness in this thread about my "Mercedes
collection," I don't see the relevance of this to audio. Surely
how I choose to spend my disposable income is up to me?

How you spend your diposable is certainly your own personal business;

Thank you for acknowledging something that should be self-evident. So why
then did you and others bring it up in this thread?

but you once implied that my purchase of a Corvette was less responsible
because you, Mr Atkinson, chose to spend your income on audio.

With respect, I said nothing like that. I raised the fact that I have
spent more on my audio system (even at accommodation prices) than you did
on your car as being a good example of how choice and preference works.
What is appropriate for you is not appropriate for me, and vice versa,
but neither choice is "better" or "worse" in absolute terms. Again, I
neither said nor implied _anything_ about your supposed lack of
responsibility. That, I can only assume, is your own projection.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

(John Atkinson) wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message
...
(John Atkinson) wrote:
regarding all the silliness in this thread about my "Mercedes
collection," I don't see the relevance of this to audio. Surely
how I choose to spend my disposable income is up to me?

How you spend your diposable is certainly your own personal business;

Thank you for acknowledging something that should be self-evident. So why
then did you and others bring it up in this thread?

I didn't bring it up. But why did you make it an issue in a prior thread?

but you once implied that my purchase of a Corvette was less responsible
because you, Mr Atkinson, chose to spend your income on audio.

With respect, I said nothing like that. I raised the fact that I have
spent more on my audio system (even at accommodation prices) than you did
on your car as being a good example of how choice and preference works.

But you didn't ask or refer about how much money I may have spent on my audio
system, did you?

So your strawman reference was irrelevant; was it not?

What is appropriate for you is not appropriate for me, and vice versa,
but neither choice is "better" or "worse" in absolute terms. Again, I
neither said nor implied _anything_ about your supposed lack of
responsibility. That, I can only assume, is your own projection.


Of course; that's how it looked to me. But, even so why did you even bother to
make any comment one way or another IF you had no implication implied?

As far as I could tell you were making a comment that you were somehow "better"
than me because you has spent "more" money on audio than I had on a particular
car.

All this without regard on how much money I may have spent on audio products;
as IF that was a legitimate qualifier.



John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

(Nousaine) wrote in message ...
(John Atkinson) wrote:
(Nousaine) wrote in message
...
(John Atkinson) wrote:
regarding all the silliness in this thread about my "Mercedes
collection," I don't see the relevance of this to audio. Surely
how I choose to spend my disposable income is up to me?

How you spend your diposable is certainly your own personal business;

Thank you for acknowledging something that should be self-evident. So
why then did you and others bring it up in this thread?

I didn't bring it up. But why did you make it an issue in a prior thread?

but you once implied that my purchase of a Corvette was less
responsible because you, Mr Atkinson, chose to spend your income on
audio.

With respect, I said nothing like that. I raised the fact that I have
spent more on my audio system (even at accommodation prices) than you
did on your car as being a good example of how choice and preference
works.

But you didn't ask or refer about how much money I may have spent on my
audio system, did you?

No. I don't think it my business, any more than how much I have spent on
audio equipment or how much I paid for my cars, or how much Stereophile
pays its writers (all questions you have asked of me on the newsgroups)
are your concern.

So your strawman reference was irrelevant; was it not?

A) it wasn't a "strawman." B) It wasn't irrelevant. Here are the comments
I made in 1999 concerning this subject and to which you were referring.
The context was your previously expressing approval of your Corvette,
just as you have done in this thread (with which I do not have a problem)
and the subject of personal preference illustrated by our personal choices:

As I write this, I am listening to the Burt Bacharach/Elvis Costello CD,
played on a Levinson No.31.5/30.5 CD player, amplification a Meridian
518 digital volume control and a pair of Levinson No.33H monoblocks,
driving B&W Silver Signature loudspeakers, all of which I have forked over
my hard-earned money for. The result is musical ecstasy and that to me is
a fair return for the cash outlay. I am sure that as Tom Nousaine drives
his Corvette over some demanding roads, he experiences similar joy.

whereas Tom Nousaine's choice is to spend a lot of money on a car, my
choice was to spend that money on my audio system. Both choices are
equally valid in that they are subjective in the truest sense of the word.

Seems clear enough to me.

As far as I could tell you were making a comment that you were somehow
"better" than me because you has spent "more" money on audio than I had
on a particular car.

As I wrote, that must be a projection on your part because my literal
words, quoted above, say no such thing. In fact, I endorse you exercising
your choice.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
(Nousaine) wrote in message
...
(John Atkinson) wrote:
(Nousaine) wrote in message


whereas Tom Nousaine's choice is to spend a lot of money on a car,
my choice was to spend that money on my audio system. Both choices
are equally valid in that they are subjective in the truest sense
of the word.

Delusions of omniscience noted.

Seems clear enough to me.

All of the delusional people I've met seem to talk that way. Everything is
very clear to them... ;-)

As far as I could tell you were making a comment that you were
somehow "better" than me because you has spent "more" money on audio
than I had on a particular car.

As I wrote, that must be a projection on your part because my literal
words, quoted above, say no such thing. In fact, I endorse you
exercising your choice.

Atkinson has no response.

Nousaine is hereby awarded two ears and a tail from our favorite source of
*bull*.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:47:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
. com
(Nousaine) wrote in message
...
(John Atkinson) wrote:
(Nousaine) wrote in message


whereas Tom Nousaine's choice is to spend a lot of money on a car,
my choice was to spend that money on my audio system. Both choices
are equally valid in that they are subjective in the truest sense
of the word.

Delusions of omniscience noted.

Seems clear enough to me.

All of the delusional people I've met seem to talk that way. Everything is
very clear to them... ;-)

As far as I could tell you were making a comment that you were
somehow "better" than me because you has spent "more" money on audio
than I had on a particular car.

As I wrote, that must be a projection on your part because my literal
words, quoted above, say no such thing. In fact, I endorse you
exercising your choice.

Atkinson has no response.

Why would he have a response to his own words?

Nousaine is hereby awarded two ears and a tail from our favorite source of
*bull*.

Delusions of omniscience and omnipotence noted.

Poor Arnold - he really has to fight hard to be "controversial" these
days. Borrrrring.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
(Nousaine) wrote in message
...
As far as I could tell you were making a comment that you were
somehow "better" than me because you has spent "more" money on
audio than I had on a particular car.

As I wrote, that must be a projection on your part because my
literal words, quoted above, say no such thing. In fact, I endorse
you exercising your choice.

Atkinson has no response.

Why would I respond to my own posting, Mr. Krueger? You should note that
it is Tom Nousaine who has not responded. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

(John Atkinson) wrote:



(Nousaine) wrote in message
...
(John Atkinson) wrote:
(Nousaine) wrote in message
...
(John Atkinson) wrote:
regarding all the silliness in this thread about my "Mercedes
collection," I don't see the relevance of this to audio. Surely
how I choose to spend my disposable income is up to me?

How you spend your diposable is certainly your own personal business;

Thank you for acknowledging something that should be self-evident. So
why then did you and others bring it up in this thread?

I didn't bring it up. But why did you make it an issue in a prior thread?

but you once implied that my purchase of a Corvette was less
responsible because you, Mr Atkinson, chose to spend your income on
audio.

With respect, I said nothing like that. I raised the fact that I have
spent more on my audio system (even at accommodation prices) than you
did on your car as being a good example of how choice and preference
works.

But you didn't ask or refer about how much money I may have spent on my
audio system, did you?

No. I don't think it my business, any more than how much I have spent on
audio equipment or how much I paid for my cars, or how much Stereophile
pays its writers (all questions you have asked of me on the newsgroups)
are your concern.

So your strawman reference was irrelevant; was it not?

A) it wasn't a "strawman." B) It wasn't irrelevant. Here are the comments
I made in 1999 concerning this subject and to which you were referring.
The context was your previously expressing approval of your Corvette,
just as you have done in this thread (with which I do not have a problem)
and the subject of personal preference illustrated by our personal choices:

As I write this, I am listening to the Burt Bacharach/Elvis Costello CD,
played on a Levinson No.31.5/30.5 CD player, amplification a Meridian
518 digital volume control and a pair of Levinson No.33H monoblocks,
driving B&W Silver Signature loudspeakers, all of which I have forked over
my hard-earned money for. The result is musical ecstasy and that to me is
a fair return for the cash outlay. I am sure that as Tom Nousaine drives
his Corvette over some demanding roads, he experiences similar joy.

whereas Tom Nousaine's choice is to spend a lot of money on a car, my
choice was to spend that money on my audio system. Both choices are
equally valid in that they are subjective in the truest sense of the word.

Seems clear enough to me.

As far as I could tell you were making a comment that you were somehow
"better" than me because you has spent "more" money on audio than I had
on a particular car.

As I wrote, that must be a projection on your part because my literal
words, quoted above, say no such thing. In fact, I endorse you exercising
your choice.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

But you completely ignored the possibility that I had spent other funds on
audio equipment as well, as though there was only one decision
possibility....to buy a Corvette or audio gear. This also completely ignores
that you may have paid even more than the cost of a Corvette on a Mercedes
collection.

As I see it your entire argument was laden with inference meant to demean my
subjective decisions by making a limited and erroneous 'decision' comparison.
In other words suggesting that choosing to buy audio equipment was somehow more
virtuous than buying transportation.

John Atkinson wrote:

I agree, Dr. Richman.

I don't understand anything about your debate but I note that you are an
habile diplomate. :-)

(John Atkinson) wrote in message
. com...
Note that this is not the first time Tom Nousaine has referred on
r.a.o. to the subject of how much Stereophile's writers are paid.

Brainfade on my part. Tom last raised the issue on rec.audio.high-end.
See, for example, message .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:
(John Atkinson) wrote in message
. com...

Note that this is not the first time Tom Nousaine has referred on
r.a.o. to the subject of how much Stereophile's writers are paid.


Brainfade on my part. Tom last raised the issue on rec.audio.high-end.
See, for example, message .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
John

I understand your desire to defend yourself and your position. However.
.. .it seems to me (as I have checked in from time to time) that the
effort isn't worth it. Do you think the forum here represents an large
percentage of your readership? If so then fight the good fight. If
not then I suggest to take a breathe, get on with your life and chalk
this up a a lost cause.

As for the rest of you who live on this site. . . get a life. (I say
this as someone who owns a high end stereo, has a dedicated room for
listening, subscribes to several mags and who has - to a lesser degree -
been one of you. In addition I would hope none of you are married, have
girlfriends or kids. If so your prioroties are out of whack)

As for the rest of you who live on this site. . . get a life. (I say
this as someone who owns a high end stereo, has a dedicated room for
listening, subscribes to several mags and who has - to a lesser degree -
been one of you. In addition I would hope none of you are married, have
girlfriends or kids. If so your prioroties are out of whack)

Good points. Pity no one here is going to take the slightest notice.

"imispgh" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
(John Atkinson) wrote in message
. com...

Note that this is not the first time Tom Nousaine has referred on
r.a.o. to the subject of how much Stereophile's writers are paid.


Brainfade on my part. Tom last raised the issue on rec.audio.high-end.
See, for example, message .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
John

I understand your desire to defend yourself and your position. However.
. .it seems to me (as I have checked in from time to time) that the
effort isn't worth it. Do you think the forum here represents an large
percentage of your readership? If so then fight the good fight. If
not then I suggest to take a breathe, get on with your life and chalk
this up a a lost cause.

As for the rest of you who live on this site. . . get a life. (I say
this as someone who owns a high end stereo, has a dedicated room for
listening, subscribes to several mags and ...whack)

Beat-off material?
Welcome, welcome. You've come [sic] to the right place.

On 16 Sep 2004 04:16:14 -0700, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

Speaking for myself, I have personally purchased almost every piece of audio
equipment in my system, at the usual accommodation price, which tends to be
the price the dealer pays. This is not "corrupt," as the offensive thread
title states, and must be put against the need for reviewers to have more
than one reference available.

Has anyone become wealthy (not sure I know what that means
anymore anyway...) from "high end" audio ?

IMO the accommodation price would be corrupting if the reviewer
couldn't count on or make use of it until the manufacturer knew the
results of the review.

I've read a lot of monitor speaker reviews on various web sites over
the past two weeks, including Stereophile. I found some of John A's
language very interesting at times. The next-to-last sentence of
the B&W 705 review was a classic: "You'd have to spend a lot more
to get significantly more quality. So what does that say about the
705 ? :-) (yes, he also said that he liked them). And then
there are the personal- interest interludes to liven up the review,
the "break in" tweak, etc. BUT: overall, I felt that the Stereophile
reviews typically provided more real information than any others
and, perhaps ironically for some, gave quite a bit of insight into
measured testing.

"GregP" wrote in message

On 16 Sep 2004 04:16:14 -0700, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

Speaking for myself, I have personally purchased almost every piece
of audio equipment in my system, at the usual accommodation price,
which tends to be the price the dealer pays. This is not "corrupt,"
as the offensive thread title states, and must be put against the
need for reviewers to have more than one reference available.

Has anyone become wealthy (not sure I know what that means
anymore anyway...) from "high end" audio ?

I see your point. Fortunes have clearly been lost on high end audio.

IMO the accommodation price would be corrupting if the reviewer
couldn't count on or make use of it until the manufacturer knew the
results of the review.

Few if any high end reviewers could afford to just run right out and just
buy review items to have something to write about. Therefore, the biggest
*payoff* to them is simply being loaned the equipment to play with.

I've read a lot of monitor speaker reviews on various web sites over
the past two weeks, including Stereophile. I found some of John A's
language very interesting at times. The next-to-last sentence of
the B&W 705 review was a classic: "You'd have to spend a lot more
to get significantly more quality. So what does that say about the
705 ? :-) (yes, he also said that he liked them). And then
there are the personal- interest interludes to liven up the review,
the "break in" tweak, etc. BUT: overall, I felt that the Stereophile
reviews typically provided more real information than any others
and, perhaps ironically for some, gave quite a bit of insight into
measured testing.

Agreed. If you can just step over all of the piles of delusional radical
subjectivist reviewer *turds* that are proudly displayed within its pages,
Stereophile could be a pretty fair ragazine.

Regrettably Atkinson's bopne-headed technical errors go uncorrected for
years, even if they don't predominate. Atkinson's habitual weirdness have
given other more technically-adept and technically-correct reviewers some
good technical feature points, such as the Ken Pohlman digital audio
equipment reviews that proudly proclaim the use of only dithered test
signals.

Note that Atkinson and his subservient minions like Zelniker still think
they know more about digital audio testing than all the best minds in the
AES.

John Atkinson wrote:

Speaking for myself, I have personally purchased almost every piece of audio
equipment in my system, at the usual accommodation price, which tends to be
the price the dealer pays. This is not "corrupt," as the offensive thread
title states, and must be put against the need for reviewers to have more
than one reference available.

I have to agree with this statement. It also applies to me.
I see nothing wrong at all with a reviewer getting an
accommodation price for equipment. Heck, dealers and
salesmen often get the same kind of bargains.

Howard Ferstler