Steven R. Rochlin wrote:
Jute,
There is no "confession." Enjoy the Music.com does not sell advertising
in exchange for positive reviews. Where is your proof?
Name one adverse review of an advertiser. Name one adverse review of
obvious **** product. Steven R. Rochlin's EnjoyTheMusic is a free
magazine on the internet. It has no subscription income. Its only
income is from advertisers. After a decade in business, Steven R.
Rochlin's EnjoyTheMusic has not found one product it did not like.
EnjoyTheMusic daily promotes products that have no audiophile benefit
or effect whatsoever. That tells its own sorry tale of dishonesty,
hypocrisy and corruption.
Obviously agree with Alan and Ayn that you have lost the plot.
A disgraced sex tourist and a superannuated brothel-keeper. This is
about your morality, Rochlin. Doesn't it strike you as significant that
the only defenders you can find are the scum of the earth? It strikes
the rest of us as extremely telling that, after I exposed the only
people who support you as deeply immoral, you still can find no better
character references than this scum.
Please show proof of your accusation "Rochlin, for instance, has told us he
has no answer to the overwhelming evidence that his
EnjoyTheMusic.ShillForAdvertisers breaks all the codes and laws honored by
decent advertisers and publishers; his excuse is that he thinks such
accusations are good advertising for him. Rochlin's confession stands on the
public record." Remember that we want hard evidence, not false accusations
and you own delusional outcomes.
Here is the original charge:
Andre Jute wrote:
Rochlin: far from "helping audiophiles" as you claim,
you are a parasite on high fidelity, pushing bland and
incompetent **** because the makers pay you for
advertising on your silly site and for the number of
foolish audiophiles who read your one-sided
travesties of reviews. You are a sales hack, pure
and simple, but one without the balls to open up
an emporium on the high street. --- Andre Jute
Here is the substance of Rochlin's reply:
Enjoy the Music.com reviews/mentions far more products/manufacturers who
have never advertised than those who have. If you take the time to see the
hundreds of reviews, and thousands of products within our show reports, you
would note that only a very, very small fraction advertise.
This is an admission of every charge against you, Steven R. Rochlin,
and against your shill operation, EnjoyTheMusic.
You stand accused of being "a parasite on high fidelity, pushing bland
and incompetent **** because the makers pay you for adverising on your
silly site".
Your answer is that you push the bland and incompetent **** of many
others as well. Of course you do, so that you can say to them, "Look,
here is a lying review that flatters your useless ****. Advertise with
me and I'll never stop flattering your useless ****."
You, Steven R. Rochlin, seem unaware of the rules of decent, honest
publication. It is not up to me to educate you. My business is
condemning you for failing to inform yourself and to act according to
the principles of decency, honesty and truthfulness which guarantee a
free, independent press. Robert Morein, who is more forgiving than I
am, has given you some sources he consulted on hand of what I wrote
earlier. You may start there.
You say "he has told us" and where have i said that?
At the point where you tried to sneer the accusation out of court
without an argument. Now, belatedly, you are trying to bluster your way
out of a pit you dug for yourself. Look it up.
Show proof "all the codes and laws honored by decent advertisers" so define
them and show point by point proof accordingly.
You have just made my case against you! It is not me who requires to
know these things. It is you. If you don't make an effort to discover
the bounds of acceptable behaviour in your trade, and you weren't born
with innate decency, of course you will go off the rails and open
yourself up to this sort of condemnation. You are not improving matters
by admitting publicly that *after ten years* you do not know what the
professional terms of reference are.
BTW: got a good chuckle from the posting about my writings not appearing in
print magazines, as if appearing in print was manna from heaven versus the
Internet. My writings have appeared in quite a few print magazines. Of
course you would have been aware of this if you had conducted proper
research.
Provide a list of magazines and dates so that we may weigh your
contribution and the quality of the magazines. In each case indicate
whether or not you received an actual sum of money from the magazine in
return for the article.
As a man who lives up to his word, and has proof to back it up, just
published an article concerning newsgroups and discussion boards.
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/
For a start, you are not living up to your word about appearing in a
*print* magazine. Your example regards EnjoyTheMusic, a free, internet,
giveaway "magazine" of the most doubtful reputation for editorial
judgement and probity, and one furthermore under your direct control
and ownership. This is vanity publishing pure and simple.
The article itself is a bland piece of zero-information ****, a
self-advertisement for your despicable shill for advertisers,
EnjoyTheMusic. If you can sell that to the editor of any reputable
print magazine with subscribers who pay for the content, that editor is
passing-out drunk. We know it isn't going to happen because you aren't
a writer, you don't know **** about audio, you don't know **** about
editing a magazine, you don't know **** about publishing, all you know
about is making a fast buck.
Patrick Turner is spot on concerning the Newsgroup when he says, "However,
kangaroo courts on news groups are appalling net practice and mostly boring
to most who never know whether or not to believe the evidence presented, or
ignore it since they've had pleasant dealings with the accused, or who have
not time to read the long posts containing so called truth about the
accused.
Patrick is often right. In that case, Steven R. Rochlin, why did you
participate for years in the kangaroo courts that the Magnequest Scum
conducted? Why are you now hiding on protected conferences with that
disgraced slime? Why doesn't your so-called article tell the truth
about some of those moderated conferences, that they were paid for by
scum like the disgraced Magnequest boss Michael LaFever so that he
wouldn't have to answer for his crimes. Why is it that Steven R.
Rochlin prefers those conferences? Is it because he does not like to be
called to account for his crimes against fidelity?
There is always a small minority of folks who dig dirt up about someone, or
make up a dirt story then forever use this dirt to flog a victim because
they dared to challenge whatever the minority may have said. There is always
a minority who like to dish out the torment but who loathe being tormented
themselves."
Again, this describes you well, Rochlin, in the days when you ran with
the Magnequest Scum. (Thanks, Patrick. That's good stuff!)
Like you Patrick, i'd love to be here for the vacuum tube though basically
stand clear of the news groups. Too much "BS factor," and that was my
complaint a week or so ago.
Rochlin, you don't know **** about tubes, you don't know **** about
electronics, you don't know **** about audio, you have no taste and you
have no culture, and you have a confounded cheek to set your own
compromised self up as our judge.
"Hardly anyone is talking tubes or hi-fi anymore." -- Patrick Turner
Then, Steven R. Rochlin, take your tacky advertisements for your tacky
little shillsheet somewhere else and we won't need all this space to
tell you and your diseased friends that you are not wanted.
Patrick, you may want to try the various moderated audio/music discussion
boards. The single to noise ratio is much higher. Rarely visit the
Newsgroups as Jute plus all the sock puppets are wonderful examples of the
wild wild West.
Moderated groups where the moderators have been told who pays for the
existence of the group. Moderated groups where it is permissable to
abuse any manufacturer except the insiders, who paid for the group
directly or indirectly. Moderated groups where it is impossible to say
that Rochlin and his EnjoyTheMusic are shills for the least deserving
advertisers. That in itself turns those moderated groups into
despicable mouthpieces for greedy undesirables like Steven R. Rochlin.
Run there, Steve-baby, don't walk.
Enjoy the Music,
All the more when you're gone.
Steven R. Rochlin
http://www.EnjoyTheMusic.ShillForAdvertisers
Where you can find:
[more shills for advertisers]
Steven R Rochlin, shill, defends EnjoyTheMusic.RipOff
Hybrid Mode
