Looking for hostility? It's still alive over at Rants and Raves where it used to live before there was an Open Bar. Elk and Vigne - champions of hostility for many years - have essentially made the argument that a poster ID'd as sloober isn't worthy to subscribe to Stereophile. I don't know whether JA agrees. I'd think he might prefer people respond affirmatively to renew, renew, renew.

Quote:
Elk and Vigne - champions of hostility for many years - have essentially made the argument that a poster ID'd as sloober isn't worthy to subscribe to Stereophile.

I didn't see it that way. I thought the point was that "sloober" hadn't gone very deep in his examination of our magazine, that he had jumped to the wrong conclusion, that he simply wasn't making much sense.

Stephen is correct; my impression is that the OP really hasn't read the coverage of Attention Screen and Cantus.

I find disturbing the impression that I denigrate a poster based on screen name. I have never done this and, in fact, object when others do so. (I admit to posting Geoff "Gooff" once after he played with my screen name a couple of times - but I think he understood I was kidding.)

Dixieland, I am sorry that you see my posts as hostile. I try to avoid personal attacks and to focus on the content of posts. I readily challenge assumptions, conclusions and statements. I expect others to challenge mine.

To my recollection our only exchange involved your assertion that amplified performance should not be called "live sound" but rather "rock sound." I challenged this distinction as simplistic, noting that both performances are "live" and there is obviously a difference between unsimplified and amplified sound."

Please note that I did not insult your intelligence, experience or ability to observe.

Unfortunately, you were unhappy and, despite repeated invitations, you have refused to explicate your point.

I remain curious. Your reaction and subsequent posts have led me to believe that you may have observations beyond the obvious that would be interesting to many of us. I continue to wish you would share.

I am saddened that you categorize me with Jan in that I strongly object to his approach. He is however bright and capable. I have failed in my approach if you find little distinction between us.

Quote:
I am saddened that you categorize me with Jan in that I strongly object to his approach.

Screw off, Elk. I have strong objections to what you do too but I don't take every opportunity to say so. What a jerk! You could have answered Dixie without the slam to me.

Quote:
I have failed in my approach if you find little distinction between us.

Quote:
He is however bright and capable.

Yep, if you can't see that distinction, you belong in this snake pit, Dixie. Oh, yeah, you're a major jerk too for your response.

Speaking of jerks, I've got what's his face - the guy who not that long ago challenged me to a bar fight because I disagreed with dup - on "ignore" so I don't know what the hell his complaint is this time. I can only guess since he never contributes anything to the audio portion of this forum he's bored when there aren't more fights to watch and members to spit at taking part. So he just starts something. And Dixie - who thinks his don't stink - jumps right in to be a f'ing PITA.

And good ol'Elk just has to insult me just to make his day complete.

So, I suppose, if you want some negativity, there you go. All you have to do is ask on this forum.

Why's this thread still here? Stephen, haven't you banned a few people to keep this sort of crap off this forum? Maybe you should consider the value of someone who just wants to start a fight and those who gleefully oblige.

Quote:
I thought it was obvious I was joking.

It was delightfully fun.

Quote:
Elk, I have never seen you be rude to anyone, I don't get where Dixie is coming from on that one.

Thanks.

However, I did label Dixieland's distinction as simplistic (or something similar). It wasn't unreasonable for him to find this condescending, although this wasn't my intent. I didn't consider it in this light until he objected. This thread looked like a good opportunity to address this.

Stephen, if you, as a member of the staff, believe that a subscriber should be taken to task for not having, "... gone very deep in his examination of our magazine", who am I to disagree. I was merely offering a suggestion to someone who was seeking a lack of civility on the forum. I think such language as the following is lacking in civility, so I directed him to it.

"If insight and knowledge are not your thing, turn the page to find something else. What a concept!"

"Sloober, I'm guessing there's something about the word "attention" that doesn't sit well with you. "

"You're kidding. How could you miss this? I suspect your rapid page turning caused your lack of understanding."

Setting aside my opinion of what constitutes civil discourse, you do have Sloober's statement, " Sure bash my insight and knowledge. It was never made clear these were "Stereophile recordings". It appears he also thought his question might have been answered without the personal criticism.

Incidentally, Stephen, how many times over the years have you received reader's comments that reviews are too heavily biased in the direction of "Ferrari Enzo expensive" components? Do you suppose there might be something to that?

Quote:
Incidentally, Stephen, how many times over the years have you received reader's comments that reviews are too heavily biased in the direction of "Ferrari Enzo expensive" components? Do you suppose there might be something to that?

This is commonly claimed. However a bit ago someone actually went through and created a chart of the price of the various components reviewed which revealed that the mix was quite even.

I suspect people notice the expensive stuff as it is showy and miss all the affordable stuff as it isn't.

Intriguing however that people complain. It's fun to look at everything. Plus, it is an expensive hobby.

I've had no experience in magazine publishing, Elk, so my assessment of the intriguing pattern of complaints is simplistic. It depends, first, on the assumption that Stereophile is not intended to be a vanity publication, but is in business to make a profit.

Some of us have been Stereophile subscribers since it was a pamphlet and had no presence in New York City. Like you, we enjoy looking at everything and recognize that ours is an expensive hobby - at least in the long run. I'm guessing that few if any of the complaints in question come from subscribers in this group.

Based only on personal observations of local magazine stands, I presume that only a miniscule portion of Stereophile's sales volume comes from over-the-counter sales, and the business succeeds or fails on the number of subscribers. More subscribers, I assume, leads to higher ad prices and presumably more advertisers as well. This simplistic notion is supported to some extent by the continuing offerings of discounts on new Stereophile subscriptions. It appears that the old guard of long time subscribers may not be sufficient to meet the magazine's needs.

If continuing complaints about reviews of very expensive products come largely from new subscribers and if new subscribers are an important component of the magazine's continuing success, wouldn't it behoove management to question whether keeping the mix "quite even" is the best policy?

I pointed to this question in my reply to Stephen. Perhaps he, or you for that matter, can show where my premises and my reasoning are flawed.

Quote:
If continuing complaints about reviews of very expensive products come largely from new subscribers and if new subscribers are an important component of the magazine's continuing success, wouldn't it behoove management to question whether keeping the mix "quite even" is the best policy?

Perhaps. I don't know whether the complaints come from new subscribers or even subscribers.

Regardless, it is interesting that the perception by some/many? is that the magazine reviews few "affordable" products.

Are there any other enthusiast publications where this is a common complaint? I haven't seen this elsewhere.

Perhaps even among enthusiasts there is a perception that audio should not cost much, just as most non-enthusiast consumers of audio believe.

To TOMTJX(NOT ELK)

Well, don't want to sound like a dick or nothin', but, ah... it says on your chart that you're ****ed up. Ah, you talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded.

and Dixie, get the sand out of your vagina