Given the enthusiastic reactions in 1994 of both your then-resident
subjectivest Jonathan Scull (in vol.19 no.2) and your avowed staff
sceptic Barry Willis
(in vol.19 no.4) to the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" (aka,
Shakti Stone), I'm sure you must have felt the need to experience these
marvels for yourself in your personal music system. How could you not?

How many Shakti Stones did (do) you use? How did you place them? Any
insider tips on which components they are most effective on? Any other
info you would care to pass along?

TIA!

In article .com,
says...

Given the enthusiastic reactions in 1994 of both your then-resident
subjectivest Jonathan Scull (in vol.19 no.2) and your avowed staff
sceptic Barry Willis
(in vol.19 no.4) to the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" (aka,
Shakti Stone), I'm sure you must have felt the need to experience these
marvels for yourself in your personal music system. How could you not?

How many Shakti Stones did (do) you use? How did you place them? Any
insider tips on which components they are most effective on? Any other
info you would care to pass along?

TIA!


Atkinson won't respond to this topic. He is a coward, as most dishonest people
are.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:45:56 GMT, (Chevdo) wrote:

In article .com,
says...

Given the enthusiastic reactions in 1994 of both your then-resident
subjectivest Jonathan Scull (in vol.19 no.2) and your avowed staff
sceptic Barry Willis
(in vol.19 no.4) to the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" (aka,
Shakti Stone), I'm sure you must have felt the need to experience these
marvels for yourself in your personal music system. How could you not?

How many Shakti Stones did (do) you use? How did you place them? Any
insider tips on which components they are most effective on? Any other
info you would care to pass along?

TIA!


Atkinson won't respond to this topic. He is a coward, as most dishonest people
are.

Actually, he tends not to respond to the idiotic stuff.

So I doubt that he's going to respond to this.

Atkinson won't respond to this topic. He is a coward,
as most dishonest people are.

Actually, he tends not to respond to the idiotic stuff.
So I doubt that he's going to respond to this.

Actually, I would call the preceding (snipped) remarks sarcastic, not
idiotic.

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. It could also be the
fear (no doubt unconscious) that his ignorance will be "caught out" in a
serious discussion. (I was told by someone in the audio industry that his
claim to have a degree is physics is a lie. I can't confirm or deny this. Of
course, one need not have a degree in any particular subject to have a
useful understanding of it.)

But I can't read John's mind, I can only judge his behavior. And it's not
what you would expect from a thoughtful, well-educated, intellectually
curious person. I can have insightful conversations with most of my friends
and acquaintances, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with me on
any particular topic, social, political, or audiophilic. This is impossible
with John. Like Wallace Shawn's tyrannosaur, he simply avoids
confrontations.

I've never met anyone as intelligent as John Atkinson who uses his intellect
so poorly. * When he became Stereophile's editor, I looked forward to
learning a lot from him, as he had considerably more experience in many
areas than I did. I quickly discovered there was no way to learn anything
from John, unless you accepted what he already believed.

By the way... 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."

Jesus H. Christ.

* The author has utterly wasted his life and talents, but that isn't quite
the same thing.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Atkinson won't respond to this topic. He is a coward,
as most dishonest people are.

Actually, he tends not to respond to the idiotic stuff.
So I doubt that he's going to respond to this.

Actually, I would call the preceding (snipped) remarks sarcastic,
not idiotic.

Whereever these questions lie on the line between "idiotic" and
"sarcastic," I have already addressed the topic at length on r.a.o.
I fail to see why I have to repeat myself because someone is too
lazy to use the Google search engine.

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?

It could also be the fear (no doubt unconscious) that his
ignorance will be "caught out" in a serious discussion. (I was
told by someone in the audio industry that his claim to have a
degree is physics is a lie. I can't confirm or deny this.

B.Sc, 2nd-class honors (lower division) in chemistry and physics,
University of London, 1972. Post-graduate qualification in the
teaching of science with Merit (one rung below the highest grade),
University of London, 1974.

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.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

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.

You still refuse to address the issue of why you refuse to have serious
conversations with people.

* 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.


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?

By the way, an audio tape was made of the meeting. Does it still exist?

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
ups.com...

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Atkinson won't respond to this topic. He is a coward,
as most dishonest people are.

Actually, he tends not to respond to the idiotic stuff.
So I doubt that he's going to respond to this.

Actually, I would call the preceding (snipped) remarks sarcastic,
not idiotic.

Whereever these questions lie on the line between "idiotic" and
"sarcastic," I have already addressed the topic at length on r.a.o.
I fail to see why I have to repeat myself because someone is too
lazy to use the Google search engine.


Your addressing was simply to say that you're too ****ing lazy to try out
the stones.

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?


The dance begins anew.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:45:56 GMT, (Chevdo) wrote:

In article .com,
says...

Given the enthusiastic reactions in 1994 of both your then-resident
subjectivest Jonathan Scull (in vol.19 no.2) and your avowed staff
sceptic Barry Willis
(in vol.19 no.4) to the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" (aka,
Shakti Stone), I'm sure you must have felt the need to experience these
marvels for yourself in your personal music system. How could you not?

How many Shakti Stones did (do) you use? How did you place them? Any
insider tips on which components they are most effective on? Any other
info you would care to pass along?

TIA!


Atkinson won't respond to this topic. He is a coward, as most dishonest
people
are.

Actually, he tends not to respond to the idiotic stuff.

So I doubt that he's going to respond to this.

Right, he just includes and endorses idiotic fraudulent stuff in his magazine.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:27:53 GMT, (Chevdo) wrote:

Actually, he tends not to respond to the idiotic stuff.

So I doubt that he's going to respond to this.

Right, he just includes and endorses idiotic fraudulent stuff in his magazine.

And apparently all you do is sit in your easy chair and bitch and moan
in a fairly idiotic fashion. He looks better and better by comparison
with every one of your posts.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:27:53 GMT, (Chevdo) wrote:

Actually, he tends not to respond to the idiotic stuff.

So I doubt that he's going to respond to this.

Right, he just includes and endorses idiotic fraudulent stuff in his
magazine.

And apparently all you do is sit in your easy chair and bitch and moan
in a fairly idiotic fashion. He looks better and better by comparison
with every one of your posts.

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.

Chevdo said:

Right, he just includes and endorses idiotic fraudulent stuff in his magazine.

Ooh! I'll bet that makes you so darned mad!

In article ,
cmndr[underscore]george[at]comcast[dot]net says...



Chevdo said:

Right, he just includes and endorses idiotic fraudulent stuff in his
magazine.

Ooh! I'll bet that makes you so darned mad!



You wish. It makes me laugh at losers like you who obviously still buy the
rag. You probably even have a subscription because being a 'stereophile' is
part of your 'interesting personality'.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:45:56 GMT, (Chevdo) wrote:

In article .com,
says...

Given the enthusiastic reactions in 1994 of both your then-resident
subjectivest Jonathan Scull (in vol.19 no.2) and your avowed staff
sceptic Barry Willis
(in vol.19 no.4) to the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" (aka,
Shakti Stone), I'm sure you must have felt the need to experience these
marvels for yourself in your personal music system. How could you not?

How many Shakti Stones did (do) you use? How did you place them? Any
insider tips on which components they are most effective on? Any other
info you would care to pass along?

TIA!


Atkinson won't respond to this topic. He is a coward, as most dishonest
people
are.

Actually, he tends not to respond to the idiotic stuff.

So I doubt that he's going to respond to this.

Asking why they allow snake oil endorsements in his magazine is idiotic?
Only if you already have demonstrated his dishonesty.