In Reply to: Future-proof = bullshit posted by Doug Schneider on March 20, 2017 at 10:38:05:
>I saw no reason to jump into this conversation until now -- to back up what
>you say about it having no place in reviews.
Hi Doug, as one of the reviewers quoted in the postings to which you are
responding, I must admit I am surprised to see your comments.I did offer an explanation why I used that phrase, an explanation that I
feel both accurate and relevant. But it is the fact you are the editor of
a competing publication that surprised me. I routinely see word usages and
text in reviews in other publications, even yours, that raise my eyebrows.
But I don't regard it as my role to publicly point them out or criticize
them. All us editors believe in what we we do, believe that we do what we
do better than our competition. How could it be otherwise. But is for our
readers to decide whether or not what we say bears up, makes sense, or is
flawed, not competing editors.I hold you in great respect, Doug. But not on this subject.
John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 03/20/17
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Future-proof = bullshit - John Atkinson 16:34:49 03/20/17 (7)
- I think you're being just a tweed bit defensive :-) - DAP 19:07:20 03/20/17 (0)
- RE: Future-proof = bullshit - Doug Schneider 18:47:19 03/20/17 (5)
- RE: Future-proof = bullshit - John Atkinson 04:13:25 03/21/17 (4)
- RE: Future-proof = bullshit - Doug Schneider 05:08:36 03/21/17 (3)
- Hey, you're lucky he didn't call you a dick :-) nt - Rick W 09:21:16 03/21/17 (2)
- You really have to earn that one (nt) - 13th Duke of Wymbourne 12:23:30 03/21/17 (0)
- I've never understood calling people names on the internet - DAP 09:46:12 03/21/17 (0)