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
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- The End of the Affair? - John Atkinson 03/8/0714:05:23 03/8/07 (16)
- Re: The End of the Affair? - john curl 14:43:18 03/8/07 (15)
- Re: The End of the Affair? - John Atkinson 16:46:19 03/8/07 (14)
- Re: The End of the Affair? - jamesgarvin 14:19:48 03/9/07 (1)
- I admit it - nightdoggy 17:11:52 03/9/07 (0)
- Re: The End of the Affair? - john curl 02:03:58 03/9/07 (11)
- Re: The End of the Affair? - John Atkinson 08:49:15 03/9/07 (7)
- John, a somewhat whimsical suggestion - Brian Walsh 19:23:28 03/9/07 (6)
- It's a deal - John Atkinson 05:57:41 03/10/07 (4)
- Re: It's a deal - Brian Walsh 17:49:55 03/10/07 (3)
- Re: It's a deal - Charles Hansen 19:09:23 03/10/07 (2)
- Re: It's a deal - Brian Walsh 19:29:01 03/10/07 (1)
- Re: It's a deal - biased 22:27:00 03/13/07 (0)
- Re: John, a somewhat whimsical suggestion - john curl 01:06:06 03/10/07 (0)
- Best leave it... - bjh 05:08:12 03/9/07 (2)
- Maybe listen to your own advice... - robert young 13:28:49 03/10/07 (0)
- Re: Best leave it... - John Atkinson 14:15:21 03/9/07 (0)