Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #521   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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   Report Post  
jclause
 
Posts: n/a
Default




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   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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 =----


  #542   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Briel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
jclause
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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   Report Post  
jclause
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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   Report Post  
jclause
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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   Report Post  
jclause
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Briel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

  #555   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question regarding Phantom Power Neil Pro Audio 110 September 27th 04 02:30 PM
Question regarding Phantom Power Neil Pro Audio 0 September 24th 04 06:44 PM
Question regarding Phantom Power Neil Pro Audio 0 September 24th 04 06:44 PM
newbie question - aardvark q10 + external mixer? alex Pro Audio 1 August 14th 04 07:29 PM
RCA out and Speaker Question in 2004 Ranger Edge Question magicianstalk Car Audio 0 March 10th 04 03:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:16 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"