Howard Ferstler wrote:
Incidentally, quite some time ago, John allowed an
edited version of a "The Audiophile Voice" article
that I published to be posted on RAO.

This is incorrect. 1) The copy editing I had performed
was done with your full knowledge and permission, Mr.
Ferstler. 2) You made several incorrect and misleading
comments about the copy editing on this newsgroup, but
refused me permission to reproduce the text to prove your
statements wrong. Even so, I did not "allow" the edited
text to be posted to r.a.o. and I publicly condemned the
anonymous person who did so.

He did not post it directly, but he did send a copy
to someone who did not have scruples (he claimed
that they said they would not post it) and they posted
it.

No, to the best of my knowledge, none of the people
to whom I sent the article posted it to Usenet. It
was done by a third party.

Several people said I should have sued, but I am
really not that kind of person.

If you felt you had a case, Mr. Ferstler, you should
have taken the appropriate action against the person
who posted the article to Usenet. But again please note
that that person was not me.

In any case, I have at least managed to get it deleted
from the standard thread links, and I have asked the
people at Google to delete it. I am not sure if this
will do the trick, but hopefully it will.

Thank you for making a good-faith effort to undo
your action, Mr. Ferstler. I am sure that that will
be the end of the matter as far as Stereophile is
concerned.

As for The Audiophile Voice article, well, I have no
problems with it being in the archives forever, in
spite of its being originally edited to make me look
like a poor writer.

Unfortunately, yes, the editing did make you look like
a poor writer, Mr. Ferstler, but justifiably so, in
my opinion.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile