Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#521
|
|||
|
|||
Brother Horace the Obtunded blundered: Brother Horace the Envious said: both Villchur and Allison think that, notwithstanding your own technical talents, Stereophile is junk journalism. Even if that's true (and as usual, it's an unsubstantiated claim), you gave no frame of reference for that "opinion". Since it sounds like more of an envy-driven diatribe than an evenhanded, dispassionate evaluation, one might fairly wonder if those individuals are as lacking in class and conscience as you are. If you think those guys lack class you are obviously in no position to judge much of anything of value. With your poor reading skills, it amazes me you consider yourself a "professional writer". Oh wait, you already admitted you're nothing but a clown. Never mind. Heck, go read the damned article in the Stereophile archives. It was men like those who got audio going as a viable hobby, and it is guys like you who are wrecking it. Why thank you, Harold. Coming from somebody who wishes his own wrecking ball were more efficacious, I'll take that as a compliment. |
#522
|
|||
|
|||
In , Howard Ferstler wrote :
"George M. Middius" wrote: Brother Horace the infantile said: Have you apologized for attempting steal an article from Stereophile? I never claimed that I wrote the article. Still not getting the whole copyright concept, I see. Not that it will ever happen, but how would you feel if people started stealing your "stuff" and passing it off as their own? Well, just what do you think of John allowing his "edited" version of my The Audiophile Voice article to get posted here on RAO some time ago? Yes, I know he apologized (and I have apologized for what I did), but rather than simply post an article that outlined the work of two good men, it appears to me that what he allowed to be accidentally posted was an attempt to make me look bad. Now, which operation do you think was worse? Be fair. Be fair ? LOL !!! Why do you care ? You are discussing with the RAO's scavenger just prove him you are alive ! :-D |
#524
|
|||
|
|||
Brother Horace the Wounded: Brother Horace the infantile said: Have you apologized for attempting steal an article from Stereophile? I never claimed that I wrote the article. Still not getting the whole copyright concept, I see. Not that it will ever happen, but how would you feel if people started stealing your "stuff" and passing it off as their own? Well, just what do you think of John allowing his "edited" version of my The Audiophile Voice article to get posted here on RAO some time ago? As I pointed out in another post, you practically invited that to happen by freely distributing the article to all and sundry. Yes, I know he apologized (and I have apologized for what I did), You did? I must have missed it. Well done, Clerkie. but rather than simply post an article that outlined the work of two good men, it appears to me that what he allowed to be accidentally posted was an attempt to make me look bad. I believe the truth is that *you* allowed it to be posted. Now, which operation do you think was worse? Be fair. My personal opinion is somewhat at odds with the law in this case, so it's really not worth much. However, I do believe, as you do, that anything goes on Usenet. This is your credo, and it's obvious you relish sinking to the lowest levels you can imagine. I believe anybody who dishes the same garbage back to you is fully justified, and we are all entitled to enjoy any misfortune that you incur on Usenet. |
#525
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Ferstler wrote: I am beginning to think that maybe I should require Mr. Atkinson to delete that "edited" TAV article of mine that was posted to RAO long ago. I could only delete it, Mr. Ferstler, if I had been the person who posted it to r.a.o. As I wasn't, I can't. Seems logical to me. But in any case, surely the copyright in that article belonged to The Audiohile Voice, not to you? John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#526
|
|||
|
|||
Now Ol' Howie's in trouble again He's tryin' to delete in vain An article he posted And then got roasted To see he's in pain is quite plain. Hammingway |
#527
|
|||
|
|||
Repost because my earlier response seems to have
disappeared into thin air. My apologies if both versions show up: 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 |
#528
|
|||
|
|||
Briel wrote:
In article , says... OK, I have jumped through the hoops and have an account set up and have located the page that allows one to remove Google group posts. I have also located the Google listing of the actual article. The instructions say to block and drop the message ID from the article's header into the proper square on the remove page. However, I have tried this and it does not work with either of the squares. Here is the Google message ID I copied, as it looks on the header: As you can see, it has those three dots between the prefix and @ sign, and I think that may be the problem. That message also lists my email address , and not as my full address. For some reason the header is not including all of the required information. I think I could dump the article if I had the full header, but all I can come up with is the one listed above. What is the subject of the posting? I can look it up and give you the full header... Hi, Bill, Here is possibly something better, the address: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...785824ac?hl=en alternatively, if that doesn't work, I would suggest that you follow the instructions on: http://groups.google.ca/googlegroups/help.html#9 where they indicate how to remove a message sent from an account that no longer exists. Simply explain that their automatic removal tool isn't working. I'll wait and see what you come up with after you read the message on Google. Howard Bill |
#529
|
|||
|
|||
"George M. Middius" wrote:
Brother Horace the Wounded: Brother Horace the infantile said: Have you apologized for attempting steal an article from Stereophile? I never claimed that I wrote the article. Still not getting the whole copyright concept, I see. Not that it will ever happen, but how would you feel if people started stealing your "stuff" and passing it off as their own? Well, just what do you think of John allowing his "edited" version of my The Audiophile Voice article to get posted here on RAO some time ago? As I pointed out in another post, you practically invited that to happen by freely distributing the article to all and sundry. But practically inviting is not inviting. I did not give permission to post a *******ized version of my article. Also, I do not remember freely distributing the article. Yes, I know he apologized (and I have apologized for what I did), You did? I must have missed it. Well done, Clerkie. I do my best. but rather than simply post an article that outlined the work of two good men, it appears to me that what he allowed to be accidentally posted was an attempt to make me look bad. I believe the truth is that *you* allowed it to be posted. Not a chance. Now, which operation do you think was worse? Be fair. My personal opinion is somewhat at odds with the law in this case, so it's really not worth much. However, I do believe, as you do, that anything goes on Usenet. This is your credo, and it's obvious you relish sinking to the lowest levels you can imagine. I believe anybody who dishes the same garbage back to you is fully justified, and we are all entitled to enjoy any misfortune that you incur on Usenet. I like you, too. Howard Ferstler |
#530
|
|||
|
|||
In .com, John Atkinson
wrote : Unfortunately, yes, the editing did make you look like a poor writer, Mr. Ferstler, but justifiably so, in my opinion. This is the kind of honest and direct critics that every serious audio lover dreams to read in a magazine like Stereophile. :-D |
#531
|
|||
|
|||
John Atkinson wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote: I am beginning to think that maybe I should require Mr. Atkinson to delete that "edited" TAV article of mine that was posted to RAO long ago. I could only delete it, Mr. Ferstler, if I had been the person who posted it to r.a.o. As I wasn't, I can't. Seems logical to me. Me, too. I am fully aware that you did not want the thing posted and that somebody did a double-deal on you. But in any case, surely the copyright in that article belonged to The Audiohile Voice, not to you? Yep, and I told Gene to forget the whole deal. It was not worth the trouble. I continue battling to remove the Stereophile archives post from the Google archives, but I seem to be unable to pull up the full message ID number. The header puts three dots between the prefix numbers and the @ sign, and I have yet to figure out what the whole number is. I do have people working on it, however. Howard Ferstler |
#532
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Ferstler wrote: I here apologize for posting the copyrighted Villchur/Allison article material from your magazine. Apology accepted, Mr. Ferstler. hopefully my new actions will prove satisfactory to you. Indeed they have done. :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#533
|
|||
|
|||
John Atkinson wrote:
Repost because my earlier response seems to have disappeared into thin air. My apologies if both versions show up: 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. Yes. But you did not have permission to post the thing. I decided to put a stop to your plans, and therefore caused your editor to essentially do all of his work for nothing. (Well, I assume you paid the guy, so basically you paid for nothing.) 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. Yep. 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. Yes, but you were essentially in charge of the article. You contracted to have it edited and then it became your responsibility to see to it that the genie did not get out of the bottle. You sent it to some boob whom you should not have trusted. I know you are sorry for what happened, and I am sorry for what I did, so perhaps we should just leave it at that. 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. Still, you let the genie out of the bottle. The edited version of the article was initially your responsibility. Had you not sent it to some pen pals it never would have made it to RAO. 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. I realize this. However, you should have picked your correspondents more carefully. Both of us are certainly aware of what kind of people we are dealing with on RAO. 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. I have a guy helping out and hopefully the damned copied article will be sent to the pits of hell in reasonable time. 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. We all have our opinions, John. You know what mine are. Howard Ferstler |
#534
|
|||
|
|||
John Atkinson wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote: I here apologize for posting the copyrighted Villchur/Allison article material from your magazine. Apology accepted, Mr. Ferstler. hopefully my new actions will prove satisfactory to you. Indeed they have done. :-) for me. And now it is on to supper for me. The wife and I always try to watch those "American Chopper" reruns. Reminds me of the good-old days. Howard Ferstler |
#535
|
|||
|
|||
Brother Horace the Helpless puled: http://www.google.com/googlegroups/help.html#9 Or if you're already registered on google.com: http://services.google.com:8882/urlconsole/controller Idiot. When I pull up the Google page to copy the message ID over to the delete-message page only part of the ID shows up. I'll bet your mama had her hands full with you, wiping your every sniffle with her lacey hankies. |
#536
|
|||
|
|||
Brother Horace the Proto-Literate flubbed: Brother Horace the Grasping whined: Yes, that's true. Krooger is a compulsive liar and slander, and you are a coward and a thief. Quite distinct, the two of you are, aside from the traits you share -- rabid religiosity, compulsion to call people names, and undergo rituals of masochism in public. Given Yes, it's virtually a given that in your way, you're nearly as dishonest and dishonorable as the Krooborg is. Nobody has yet linked you to pedophilia, though, so overall you're not as despicable. Coming from you, this is quite a complement. Learn to write, hack. |
#537
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#538
|
|||
|
|||
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Brother Horace the infantile said: Have you apologized for attempting steal an article from Stereophile? I never claimed that I wrote the article. Still not getting the whole copyright concept, I see. Not that it will ever happen, but how would you feel if people started stealing your "stuff" and passing it off as their own? Like Henny Youngman. Take my article, please! ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#539
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#540
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Yes, I know he apologized (and I have apologized for what I did), but rather than simply post an article that outlined the work of two good men, it appears to me that what he allowed to be accidentally posted was an attempt to make me look bad. "Heck", even 'you' make you look bad. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#541
|
|||
|
|||
"George M. Middius" wrote:
Brother Horace the Helpless puled: http://www.google.com/googlegroups/help.html#9 Or if you're already registered on google.com: http://services.google.com:8882/urlconsole/controller Idiot. When I pull up the Google page to copy the message ID over to the delete-message page only part of the ID shows up. I'll bet your mama had her hands full with you, wiping your every sniffle with her lacey hankies. Well, I never thought I would be saying this, but thanks, George. I still do not know why my pullup of the Google post only displayed part of the message ID at the top. Actually, if you look there is more of a difference than just the supposedly missing letters: The whole damned thing is different. Yet this is the number I found at the top of the archive post. Well, in any case, Google says the post will be gone in a few hours. Howard Ferstler |
#542
|
|||
|
|||
John Atkinson wrote:
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. Whatever. In any case, Google says that my attempt to delete the Stereophile article was successful. My thanks to Middius for coming up with the proper message ID. I still cannot figure out why the number of the item I pulled up, which was at least the correct message, was quite different. Howard Ferstler |
#543
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
says... Hi, Bill, Here is possibly something better, the address: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...785824ac?hl=en Howard, sorry about the delay - I decided I had better get out and mow my lawn (I've been on the road for almost the whole month of April). Anyway, that makes it easy -- Here's the whole header: ------------- Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:32:47 -0400 From: Howard Ferstler Reply-To: Organization: Intellectuals Incorporated X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion Subject: Question for the Ferstlerian References: 1113432156.384674.145680 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com .com 1113860298.031017.53400 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com 1113864428.123451.244170 @l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com 1113908756.252161.236240 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com .com 1113998128.859648.281650 @l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com .com smcatut- 1114265719.545842.230210 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com smcatut-CEAA4E.12441725042005@news- fe-02.texas.rr.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.65.79.28 X-Trace: 25 Apr 2005 18:48:36 GMT, 12.65.79.28 Lines: 926 --------------------- Note that the From: and Reply to: fields are not complete, but you know what those are (your email address) They are probably incomplete as a SPAM blocking measure? In any case, the Message ID is probably what you are after, and it is complete. Let me know how things work out. Cheers, Bill |
#544
|
|||
|
|||
Briel wrote:
In article , says... Hi, Bill, Here is possibly something better, the address: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...785824ac?hl=en Howard, sorry about the delay - I decided I had better get out and mow my lawn (I've been on the road for almost the whole month of April). Anyway, that makes it easy -- Here's the whole header: ------------- Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:32:47 -0400 From: Howard Ferstler Reply-To: Organization: Intellectuals Incorporated X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion Subject: Question for the Ferstlerian References: 1113432156.384674.145680 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com .com 1113860298.031017.53400 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com 1113864428.123451.244170 @l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com 1113908756.252161.236240 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com .com 1113998128.859648.281650 @l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com .com smcatut- 1114265719.545842.230210 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com smcatut-CEAA4E.12441725042005@news- fe-02.texas.rr.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.65.79.28 X-Trace: 25 Apr 2005 18:48:36 GMT, 12.65.79.28 Lines: 926 --------------------- Note that the From: and Reply to: fields are not complete, but you know what those are (your email address) They are probably incomplete as a SPAM blocking measure? In any case, the Message ID is probably what you are after, and it is complete. Let me know how things work out. Cheers, Bill Hi, Bill, Would you believe that Middius beat you to it!! My god, Middius!! I made the deletion OK using his info. I have no idea why he was so helpful. Probably a weak moment on his part. As I noted before, the weird thing about this is that when I pulled up the message from the archives, the message ID was listed as noted: No other data was there, and certainly not the monumental amount you listed. Not only do we have those three dots in the number field, but we also have completely different numbers in front of them. How did you (and Middius) come up with that different number? Many thanks for your effort, in any case. If you ever want to chat about audio in general, I am at: I use this instead of the AT&T address for regular email, because the spam filter on the latter is not that good and for some reason people who write me there keep getting "mail-box full" messages. Probably some damned worm or virus, or whatever. I only use it for newsgroup work and sending article drafts to my editors. What lay ahead? Well, I have a few more product reviews to write for the magazine, and a few more recording reviews, too, and then it is likely that I will be dropping out of the audio-journalism business. I know that I have told people that I will keep going for a long time, but I mainly said that to annoy some of them. I believe that the hobby is not in all that good a shape these days, and I simply do not want to be a part of it any more. I am not all that demoralized, because I enjoy the systems I have and I have well over 1,000 discs here that I would like to spend time listening to. I will leave it to the more pugilistic objective types to deal with the irrational in audio from now on. Howard |
#545
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:52:01 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: dave weil wrote: On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:38:04 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: The system in there right now is my "small" set up, and I use it as a reference standard when reviewing smaller-scale components. Every time I look at it I begin to realize that she is right about that room. The whole place (all three systems) is just overkill. There ya go. So why is *your* "overkill" any better than some rich software develper's overkill $20,000 amp and marble foyer? Because his expenditure, at least for that amp, has gained him nothing. Sure it has. If you think really hard, you might figure out what it is. On the other hand, my expenditures deliver concrete performance benefits and also allow me to get a bit of variety out of listening to three different systems. Frankly, concrete doesn't do a lot for me in terms of audio performance. Even the metaphor shows that. You've probably spent far more of a percentage of your disposable income on your audio/video that one of those guys or gals. Hey, I am an audio buff. One of those "guys or gals" is probably just a money-spending showoff. I remember reading about Fabio's system. The largest Martin-Logans ever, about $300,000 worth of audio/video gear. The guy was an audio FREAK. That's just one example. Some people, people who can afford both audio performance *and* exclusivity, probably like audio as well. And actually, you aren't an "audio buff", you are a guy who uses audio to supplement your income. To tell the truth, I have a number of reviewing jobs on the horizon, but once they are done I will probably "retire" from audio writing and even record reviewing. So, does this mean that you are going to "give up" your overkill systems? No. And none of them are overkill. Make up your mind. They are just right for me. As is a stereo system costing $200,000 for someone who makes a million a year. Overkill would be spending twenty grand (or even two grand) on a stereo power amp, or spending hundreds (or even thousands) on wires. Overkill FOR YOU (and me, for that matter) and your income level, that's for sure. Still, even if you do, which I don't think for a minute that you would, you're going to be stuck with an overbuilt home. Trust me. It would take a pretty fabulous place, indeed, for me to consider it overbuilt. Well, it *is* overbuilt, by your own admission. Given the absolutely nitwit level so-called "serious" audio has sunk to over the years, it just is not as interesting for me as it once was. Every time I pick up an audio magazine (including even the ones I write for) I roll my eyes and wonder how it has all come to this. Here's a hint. Do what *I* do - don't pick up an audio magazine unless necessary. I scope some of them on the newsstands (although most of the time I scope woodworking magazines or car and motorcycle mags), and probably will not resubscribe to any that come my way now. Not really all that interesting anymore. You're actually SUBSCRIBED? That's more than I am, that's for sure. |
#546
|
|||
|
|||
Ol' Howie he gets all excited.. It seems he feels he was blighted So he yacks his jaws And this is because, To the big league he was never invited. Hammingway |
#547
|
|||
|
|||
But isn’t it amusing seeing Howard, again, jumping through hoops Ol' Howie he junped through the hoop And appealed for help from the group He felt the heat But couldn't delete 'Cause seldom does he know the scoop. Hammingway |
#548
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Ferstler wrote: Sander deWaal wrote: Howard Ferstler said: I am going to have to get guru help to do this Google work. Hell, I can hardly access my own email sometimes, and have never even been into the Google archive. Cut me some slack and let me work on the procedure after I contact an expert or two. Arnold, can't you help this poor soul? ;-) Yeah, I really would like to get this over with. Incidentally, quite some time ago, John allowed an edited version of a "The Audiophile Voice" article that I published to be posted on RAO. 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. Who the hell are you to talk about other peoples' scruples? A plagiarist and a fraud. You have no leg to stand on. Several people said I should have sued, but I am really not that kind of person. For what, being exposed as a hack? I have news for you, the cat was already out of the bag on that one. 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. 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. You are a poor writer. Even you must know this considering you offered plagiarized work as an example of *your* (chuckle) best efforts. Get a life. Scott Wheeler |
#549
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... Who the hell are you to talk about other peoples' scruples? A plagiarist and a fraud. You have no leg to stand on. That's ok, he can just sit in the cab of his wrecking ball. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#550
|
|||
|
|||
What if one of the things it is supposed to do is cost a lot of money? Ol' Howie has a low-cost sub Got it free by joinin' a club He thinks it's neat And can't be beat.. But it sounds like beatin' on a tub. Hammingway |
#551
|
|||
|
|||
The crux of the problem has to do with the listening experience
Now Howie, he thinks he's smart, That his hearing's plum' off the chart But it's quite clear That he can't hear The difference in a burp and a fart. Hammingaway |
#552
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
says... Hi, Bill, Would you believe that Middius beat you to it!! My god, Middius!! I made the deletion OK using his info. I have no idea why he was so helpful. Probably a weak moment on his part. As I noted before, the weird thing about this is that when I pulled up the message from the archives, the message ID was listed as noted: No other data was there, and certainly not the monumental amount you listed. Not only do we have those three dots in the number field, but we also have completely different numbers in front of them. How did you (and Middius) come up with that different number? Well, this may be useless knowledge for you now, but here's the way to view the whole header: most newsreaders suppress the whole header, but have some way to reveal it. In google, there's an option to view the message in "Original format" - actually, I wasn't aware that google groups behaved that way (I never use google groups, except to search for things of interest). While it's hardly intuitive, the "Original format" shows the header. In most newsreaders it's something simple like "View full header". Many thanks for your effort, in any case. If you ever want to chat about audio in general, I am at: Thanks! I'll probably take you up on that though you may find that I don't have too much to say at this stage except ask a ton of questions - I've only become interested in audio in the last 8 months or so and I find that I've got an awful lot to learn. I use this instead of the AT&T address for regular email, because the spam filter on the latter is not that good and for some reason people who write me there keep getting "mail-box full" messages. Probably some damned worm or virus, or whatever. I only use it for newsgroup work and sending article drafts to my editors. What lay ahead? Well, I have a few more product reviews to write for the magazine, and a few more recording reviews, too, and then it is likely that I will be dropping out of the audio-journalism business. I know that I have told people that I will keep going for a long time, but I mainly said that to annoy some of them. I believe that the hobby is not in all that good a shape these days, and I simply do not want to be a part of it any more. I am not all that demoralized, because I enjoy the systems I have and I have well over 1,000 discs here that I would like to spend time listening to. I will leave it to the more pugilistic objective types to deal with the irrational in audio from now on. Well, I wish you well - and I expect you will be hearing from me as questions arise! Cheers, Bill |
#553
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Ferstler wrote: wrote: When talking about a stretched diaphram like the ones in the CLSs flexing and changing size/stretching *are* the same thing. As for how all this affects the dispersion of the CLS speakers I suggest you consider what happens to a diaphram that is fixed on it's parimeter when it moves closer to the stator that is infront of it. Again, you may want to review your grade school geometry before working on this simple concept. Have fun figuring things out. Scott Wheeler Regarding this "stretched diaphragm," how does this curved diaphragm maintain its curved shape when stretched? Boy oh boy, geometry wasn't your best subject either was it? Would you ask the same question of a balloon as it is being blown up? How on earth do they maintain their curved shapes while being stretched? It's a mystery Howie, it's a mystery. It is attached at either side and one would think that unless it was stretched fairly tight and pulled flat that it would kind of sag in the middle. Well, that would be quite a challenge now wouldn't it. I can't imagine how Martin Logan pulls it off. Howie, maybe you should contenplate the wonders and marvels of a tennis racket. How on earth do they keep that open weave string from sagging in the middle? Now, if the diaphragm is rather stiff that would allow it to maintain its shape over that curved radius and no stretching would be required. However, in that case it would have to be fairly heavy, which would kind of run counter to the low-mass requirements. And the stiffness would generate resonances and also make it difficult for the thing to flex at all. OK you really are that stupid. Scott Wheeler |
#554
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Ferstler wrote: wrote: Wow, you really are a miserable person. All that hate over a hobby. It must suck to be you. Scott Wheeler It causes me quite a bit of grief to realize just what you tweako dirtbags have done over the past few decades to wreck audio as an intelligent person's hobby. That's just funny. Heck. at least Don Quiote thought he was winning. Fortunately, unlike you freaks my world does not revolve around my audio systems. Indeed, it revolves around other peoples' audio systems and your hatred for unaffordable excellence. That is sad really. I can back out of the enterprise and not give up a thing. Yeah right. On the other hand, for guys like you there is no such thing as self esteem without your tweako-grade audio systems. Selef esteem in others makes you very uncomfortable doesn't it? Enjoy your toy, freako. Keep up the misery and self-loathing, loser. Scott Wheeler |
#555
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:52:01 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: dave weil wrote: There ya go. So why is *your* "overkill" any better than some rich software develper's overkill $20,000 amp and marble foyer? Because his expenditure, at least for that amp, has gained him nothing. Sure it has. If you think really hard, you might figure out what it is. Yeah, I know all about the pride of ownership issue. Bunk. And actually, you aren't an "audio buff", you are a guy who uses audio to supplement your income. Kind of. Actually, my wife says I should give up the writing, because I can get a lot more post-retirement cash from doing something else. She is right. However, trust me: I really am an audio buff. So, does this mean that you are going to "give up" your overkill systems? No. And none of them are overkill. Make up your mind. They are just right for me. As is a stereo system costing $200,000 for someone who makes a million a year. In spite of your take on rich people being able to spend huge sums on audio gear and that not being all that silly, given that the amounts are trivial to them, I believe that there are absolutes when it comes to spending on audio gear. Yes, a millionaire might not feel pinched by spending 200 grand on an audio rig, but I think he is still being idiotic. There is more here than the percentage spent in relation to his wealth. Overkill would be spending twenty grand (or even two grand) on a stereo power amp, or spending hundreds (or even thousands) on wires. Overkill FOR YOU (and me, for that matter) and your income level, that's for sure. See the above comments. If some nitwit spends way, way more than he needs to in order to get top-tier results, then he is a nitwit no matter how rich he is. Given the absolutely nitwit level so-called "serious" audio has sunk to over the years, it just is not as interesting for me as it once was. Every time I pick up an audio magazine (including even the ones I write for) I roll my eyes and wonder how it has all come to this. Here's a hint. Do what *I* do - don't pick up an audio magazine unless necessary. I scope some of them on the newsstands (although most of the time I scope woodworking magazines or car and motorcycle mags), and probably will not resubscribe to any that come my way now. Not really all that interesting anymore. You're actually SUBSCRIBED? That's more than I am, that's for sure. Well, I get some free of charge: comp copies. Howard Ferstler |
#556
|
|||
|
|||
Brother Horace the Persistently Envious said: In spite of your take on rich people being able to spend huge sums on audio gear and that not being all that silly, given that the amounts are trivial to them, I believe that there are absolutes when it comes to spending on audio gear. Of course you do. That's what you cling to in order to rationalize your warped religious beliefs. |
#557
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Kind of. Actually, my wife says I should give up the writing, because I can get a lot more post-retirement cash from doing something else. She is right. We'll look forward to your greeting us at your local Wal-Mart. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
newbie question - aardvark q10 + external mixer? | Pro Audio | |||
RCA out and Speaker Question in 2004 Ranger Edge Question | Car Audio |