 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.213.7.6
In Reply to: Re: Chinese Whispers? posted by john curl on March 8, 2007 at 12:47:55:
>I am not trying to make a problem with 'Stereophile', you, or anyone
>else. What I wanted was that stuff like this occurs, and you tend to
>demand proof, before you will accept the facts.
I am sorry you see my questions as demand for "proof," John. They
weren't meant as such. When I was offering last July you to get the
matter resolved and the question of restitution was concerned, I
thought it appropriate to ask you about the specific facts concerning
what happened: the value of the cables in question is hardly
irrelevant, for example, if they need to be paid for.
>I claimed that someone formally associated with your magazine, once
>did something similar. Or was he working at TAS when it happened? I
>don't know, and it really doesn't matter, because it was the
>PRINCIPLE of the thing that is important.
If you read Jonathan's post in this thread, you can see that the
cables were loaned to him when he was at TAS, which is why I have no
record of Stereophile being loaned these cables. It appears that
Jonathan persuaded Bob to let him hang on to them when he started
writing for Stereophile in the fall of 1993 and in the years since
then Bob never asked either Jonathan or me for the cables to be
returned. Despite your saying that it is the "PRINCIPLE of the thing
that is important," not the specific magazine, you presented this
matter both last June and again in this thread as involving
Stereophile magazine, and I felt that if that was indeed the case,
I was obliged to try to put things right.
Despite your protestations that "it really doesn't matter," it
obviously is still a live issue for you, John. Bob Crump can't be
compensated, obviously, but if you tell me what the dealer cost
of the pair of cables concerned was back in 1991, I will pay that
sum to charity on behalf of Stereophile. I hope you will agree that
my doing so will bring this matter to a close.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Now, I'm the 'bad guy' for pointing out that cables sometimes do not get returned, even if the company that made them still considers them of some value. I know that Bob wanted something for his cables, he told me himself. What about Nordost? Did they really want something for their (loaner) cables as well? Perhaps. Also, they might have taken exception to them being sold in the marketplace, because this might inhibit a potential retail sale for them. I don't know, but I will accept JV's explanation of what happened, just as I will accept JS's explanation as well. Why not, and why was JV's explanation not accepted here in the first place? Why one, and not the other?
My original input here was NOT to impune anyone, but create a more level playing field, since this sort of thing happens on occasion, I will leave it at that.
> Now, I'm the 'bad guy' for pointing out that cables sometimes do not
> get returned, even if the company that made them still considers them
> of some value.
No-one has said that you're the bad guy for saying this, John. I am
pointing out that the fact that you have now _twice_ publicly
impugned Stereophile's integrity on this forum for cables that were
loaned to a reviewer when he was at TAS, is misleading and defamatory.
I phoned you last year year to investigate this story the first time
you raised it, only for you to wave me off. And now I have offered you
a way of straightening the books, yet you appear to be waving me off
_again_.
> I know that Bob wanted something for his cables, he told me himself.
As I said, if you tell me what the dealer cost was in 1991, I will
donate that sum to charity. That way you can start sleeping at night
for the first time in, what, 14 years. If you refuse to tell me, then
I will still pay the charity -- the Southern Poverty Law Center, if
you need to know -- $200 and assume the matter is closed.
> What about Nordost? Did they really want something for their (loaner)
> cables as well?
I am told by a manufacturer that the reimbursement to Nordost was in
five figures. I have no idea if that is true or not.
> I don't know, but I will accept JV's explanation of what happened,
> just as I will accept JS's explanation as well.
Jonathan Valin has not offered any explanation, neither here or
anywhere else, to the best of my knowledge. His sole comment on the
subject to me in person was to call me a "fucker" in public at the
recent CES, apparently for knowing about the matter.
> why was JV's explanation not accepted here in the first place? Why
> one, and not the other?
It certainly looks to me as if Tom Martin's explanation has been accepted.
> My original input here was NOT to impune anyone, but create a more
> level playing field...
Yet impugne you did John, with gusto. You owe me a beer, I think.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"His sole comment on the subject to me in person was to call me a "fucker" in public at the recent CES, apparently for knowing about the matter."Well, now that we all know about this tawdry affair, I guess we are all "fuckers" too. I hope my wife and kids never find out. Oops, they live with me, they already know.
I'm a fucker!
Cables should be made to self destruct as soon as the review is over.
We have the technology...
Did someone say something about a cold beer?
Bob certainly complained about those cables a lot sooner than 14 years ago. Heck, I didn't start working with him till about 10 years ago. Still, so what?
> Bob certainly complained about those cables a lot sooner than 14
> years ago. Heck, I didn't start working with him till about 10 years
> ago. Still, so what?
Just that this was a long time ago John, and it has been bothering
you ever since. All I am saying is that despite you and Bob
complaining privately, neither of you did so to me, or to Jonathan
despite the many occasions we have met in person since 1993. Had you
done so, I would have resolved the matter.
You didn't want me to resolve the matter when you raised on the
Asylum last June, but given that it is still an issue for you, I
feel it should be resolved, in the manner I suggested in my postings
yesterday: given the sad fact that Bob is no longer with us, I will
send the SPLC a check for $200 and I assume that my doing so will be
the end of the matter.
I have been worrying about _why_ you or Bob did not want to raise the
matter with me, John. I hope you weren't concerned about retaliation
of any kind. Please be assured that I respect the fact that loan
equipment remains the property of the manufacturers and they have
every right to ask for it back when they need it back. If there
_are_ any manufacturers reading this who have equipment on loan to
Stereophile reviewers and who are nervous about requesting its
return, feel free to email me. I will gladly arrange for its return.
And as I said, John, you owe me a beer. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Instead of donating to charity, how about pitching in on (and attending) next year's pizza and beer party, the tradition of which was started by Bob Crump several years ago at CES? This year's party was held in the VMPS/Audience room at THE Show, where John Curl showed the prototype of the new Vendetta phono stage. I think Bob would welcome the idea and know John would be all for it. :-)
Best regards,
> Instead of donating to charity, how about pitching in on (and
> attending) next year's pizza and beer party, the tradition of
> which was started by Bob Crump several years ago at CES?
That's an excellent idea, Brian. Most appropriate. I'll still donate
the money to charity as promised, but will also contribute to the bar
bill at the 2008 CES Bob Crump Memorial party.
I hope that that by my doing so, all will be satisfied with the outcome.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Thank you, John! That's a really fine gesture on your part. I surely hope you and others from Stereophile can stop by for a slice and a brew and good cheer. As the time approaches I'll keep you posted on the venue. It would be on the second night of the show.Thanks again!
Best regards,
< < It would be on the second night of the show. > >Sorry, that night is taken. That's the night we have scheduled to bribe all of the reviewers with a night of cocaine and hookers.
Aw, shucks, Charlie! Will you attend anyway, I hope? :-)
Best regards,
Hey John,My Mercedes could use some work. I could surely use one of those donations at the moment! How bout it?!? (I'll buy the six pack)
(I just LOVE this stuff!!!!!)
W.
Best leave it Brian, or we may never be invited to the 'Stereophile' party again. ;-)
It's obvious Atkinson was seeking some kind of victory and *his* choosing to divulge the reviewer's name only indicates just how desperate his pursuit of that goal.But then Atkinson hasn't exactly been putting on a classy performance here of late, and one would be near purblind to have not noticed that a persistent aspect of his debating style is the attempt to goat what he likely sees as his opponent into a spitting match, i.e. don’t be surprised if shortly he solicits you to put down your “crackpipe”.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
this obsession of yours has become embarrassing.
> one would be near purblind to have not noticed that a persistent
> aspect of [Atkinson's] debating style is the attempt to goa[d]
> what he likely sees as his opponent into a spitting match, i.e.
> don’t be surprised if shortly he solicits you to put down
> your “crackpipe”.
I have known John Curl for almost 30 years and have enormous
respect for him as a design engineer. I even like him personally.
But that still doesn't mean that everything he says is correct.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
