Response to Mr. David Andrews
Atkinson, when are you going to figure it out? Readers don't give a rat's patootie for reading blogs (or article digressions, Sam Tellig...) on what you guys had for dinner, who you know in Europe, what art galleries you visit, etc. or anything else that isn't directly related to the title of your magazine. Why do you keep this guy anyway? Because his already retro glasses make him seem smart?
I was going to leave your typos in, but I just couldn’tfor the sake of the prettiness of my blog, as well as to satisfy my natural editorial urges.
I’ve made a few attempts at posting a response in the comments section, but, for some reason, it’s not working out. Either I’ve already posted too many replies over there, or the comments tool, which has been slightly messed up since the beginning of blog-time, is just being screwy.
In any case, I’m posting my response to you here. I’m not trying to attract some greater amount of attention, or call you out on a larger playing field, or anything like that at all. I just want you to know that I care.
Here is my response:
Hi David Andrews.
While you say you're not interested in the blog, it does seem that some people are. And that makes me happy.
Thank you for including me in the same sentence with Sam Tellig. I'm not nearly as awesome at writing as he is. He's another guy whose work inspires me.
You say that Europe and art galleries and dinner and this blog have nothing to do with Stereophile. Similarly, I don't see what my glasses have to do with your argument. I wrote a story about my glasses once, though. If you want to read and criticize that, you can find it here.
I think it’s a good and funny story. I hope you like it.
While this blog does not make up all of Stereophile (and does not make up all of the work I do here), it is a small part of the whole, and I am very proud and honored to be a part of this magazine.
Thanks for reading and thanks for commenting.