Get a life

[Ferstler]

The people who regularly hang out here need to get a life.

Howard Ferstler

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
Ferstler > wrote:

> The people who regularly hang out here need to get a life.
>
> Howard Ferstler

As opposed to those who say that they are leaving, then keep coming back
to insult those who are here.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jan 7, 1:38*pm, Ferstler > wrote:
> The people who regularly hang out here need to get a life.

So what suicide method are you contemplating, Harold?

[Ferstler]

On Jan 7, 2:41*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> *Ferstler > wrote:
> > The people who regularly hang out here need to get a life.
>
> > Howard Ferstler
>
> As opposed to those who say that they are leaving, then keep coming back
> to insult those who are here.

Well, I was gone long enough for you guys to maybe shape up and become
sane. After reading through some of the threads I can see that has not
happened. Don't worry, I will not be hanging around. Maybe I will drop
back in a few months (or years) to see if any of you have become
interested enough in audio to actually post messages about the
subject.

Enjoy your audio rig - assuming you actually have one.

Howard Ferstler

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
Ferstler > wrote:

> On Jan 7, 2:41*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > *Ferstler > wrote:
> > > The people who regularly hang out here need to get a life.
> >
> > > Howard Ferstler
> >
> > As opposed to those who say that they are leaving, then keep coming back
> > to insult those who are here.
>
> Well, I was gone long enough for you guys to maybe shape up and become
> sane. After reading through some of the threads I can see that has not
> happened. Don't worry, I will not be hanging around. Maybe I will drop
> back in a few months (or years) to see if any of you have become
> interested enough in audio to actually post messages about the
> subject.
>
> Enjoy your audio rig - assuming you actually have one.
>
> Howard Ferstler

I have an audio rig, and I have music.

How is retirement working out?

[Ferstler]

On Jan 7, 2:45*pm, Boon > wrote:
> On Jan 7, 1:38*pm, Ferstler > wrote:
>
> > The people who regularly hang out here need to get a life.
>
> So what suicide method are you contemplating, Harold?

Well, I am not about to make suggestions about how you should do
yourself in. Pick any method that is not too complex for you to pull
off. That probably narrows the options considerably.

Don't worry. I am not going to hang around, and I will probably take a
shower after looking over some of the commentaries. I just dropped by
to see if you goons had bothered to grow up. Obviously, after looking
at numerous threads already, this has not happened.

I did post a comment or three within one other thread, "once upon a
midnight clear," because I spotted a comment by Atkinson relating to
my now temporary work at AudioXpress. I will be leaving that outfit,
too. It's your kind of magazine, for sure, just like Atkinson's.

Howard Ferstler

[Ferstler]

On Jan 7, 3:00*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *Ferstler > wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 2:41*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> > > *Ferstler > wrote:
> > > > The people who regularly hang out here need to get a life.
>
> > > > Howard Ferstler
>
> > > As opposed to those who say that they are leaving, then keep coming back
> > > to insult those who are here.
>
> > Well, I was gone long enough for you guys to maybe shape up and become
> > sane. After reading through some of the threads I can see that has not
> > happened. Don't worry, I will not be hanging around. Maybe I will drop
> > back in a few months (or years) to see if any of you have become
> > interested enough in audio to actually post messages about the
> > subject.
>
> > Enjoy your audio rig - assuming you actually have one.
>
> > Howard Ferstler
>
> I have an audio rig, and I have music.
>
> How is retirement working out?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The very definition of perfection.

Howard Ferstler

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jan 7, 2:03*pm, Ferstler > wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2:45*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > On Jan 7, 1:38*pm, Ferstler > wrote:
>
> > > The people who regularly hang out here need to get a life.
>
> > So what suicide method are you contemplating, Harold?
>
> Well, I am not about to make suggestions about how you should do
> yourself in. Pick any method that is not too complex for you to pull
> off. That probably narrows the options considerably.

That's an IKYABWAI, Harold. That's the sign of someone who cannot come
up with original ideas. It's well-known that most of your reviews were
simply regurgitated ideas from Roy Allison...maybe you should ask him
how to do it.

>
> Don't worry. I am not going to hang around, and I will probably take a
> shower after looking over some of the commentaries. I just dropped by
> to see if you goons had bothered to grow up. Obviously, after looking
> at numerous threads already, this has not happened.

Translation: we all remember how you plagiarized Quad when you
contributed to that so-called audio encyclopedia. And no, there's not
a whole new crowd here of people who don't know what an audio has-been
(or never-were) you actually are.

I bet taking showers is the highlight of your day, just like Lester
Burnham.

>
> I did post a comment or three within one other thread, "once upon a
> midnight clear," because I spotted a comment by Atkinson relating to
> my now temporary work at AudioXpress. I will be leaving that outfit,
> too. It's your kind of magazine, for sure, just like Atkinson's.

No, it's not. It's a rag. A decent publication wouldn't hire you once
they read your dry, boring, pedestrian, plagiarized prose.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jan 7, 3:38*pm, Ferstler > wrote:
> On Jan 7, 3:00*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *Ferstler > wrote:
> > > On Jan 7, 2:41*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
>
> > > > *Ferstler > wrote:
> > > > > The people who regularly hang out here need to get a life.
>
> > > > > Howard Ferstler
>
> > > > As opposed to those who say that they are leaving, then keep coming back
> > > > to insult those who are here.
>
> > > Well, I was gone long enough for you guys to maybe shape up and become
> > > sane. After reading through some of the threads I can see that has not
> > > happened. Don't worry, I will not be hanging around. Maybe I will drop
> > > back in a few months (or years) to see if any of you have become
> > > interested enough in audio to actually post messages about the
> > > subject.
>
> > > Enjoy your audio rig - assuming you actually have one.
>
> > > Howard Ferstler
>
> > I have an audio rig, and I have music.
>
> > How is retirement working out?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The very definition of perfection.

If perfection meant sitting around and waiting to die, I bet you're
right.

[Ferstler]

On Jan 7, 5:23*pm, Boon > wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2:03*pm, Ferstler > wrote:
>
> > On Jan 7, 2:45*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 7, 1:38*pm, Ferstler > wrote:
>
> > > > The people who regularly hang out here need to get a life.
>
> > > So what suicide method are you contemplating, Harold?
>
> > Well, I am not about to make suggestions about how you should do
> > yourself in. Pick any method that is not too complex for you to pull
> > off. That probably narrows the options considerably.
>
> That's an IKYABWAI, Harold. That's the sign of someone who cannot come
> up with original ideas. It's well-known that most of your reviews were
> simply regurgitated ideas from Roy Allison...maybe you should ask him
> how to do it.
>
>
>
> > Don't worry. I am not going to hang around, and I will probably take a
> > shower after looking over some of the commentaries. I just dropped by
> > to see if you goons had bothered to grow up. Obviously, after looking
> > at numerous threads already, this has not happened.
>
> Translation: we all remember how you plagiarized Quad when you
> contributed to that so-called audio encyclopedia. And no, there's not
> a whole new crowd here of people who don't know what an audio has-been
> (or never-were) you actually are.
>
> I bet taking showers is the highlight of your day, just like Lester
> Burnham.
>
>
>
> > I did post a comment or three within one other thread, "once upon a
> > midnight clear," because I spotted a comment by Atkinson relating to
> > my now temporary work at AudioXpress. I will be leaving that outfit,
> > too. It's your kind of magazine, for sure, just like Atkinson's.
>
> No, it's not. It's a rag. A decent publication wouldn't hire you once
> they read your dry, boring, pedestrian, plagiarized prose.

Well, I am not going to judge the magazine all that critically.
Basically, it is supposed to be a forum where all ideas (weird as well
as valid) can be explained. I told the publisher that was like
inviting witch doctors to address medical conventions, and that is why
I decided to not do any more work for them. Given its approach in some
areas, it looks like just the kind of publication you would enjoy.

I praised Quad in the essay I did on them and basically used material
that they had no objection to. That was one of the few cases where I
did something like that, and in all of those cases I was told by the
company reps to use the materials as I saw fit. I did not literally
plagiarize and edited their material to fit the style of the two-
volume "The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound." The book has sold well,
by the way, and everybody was satisfied. Incidentally, Routledge was
so satisfied that they did a reduced-size budget version, called "The
Routledge Guide to Music Technology," and it basically involved all of
the technical articles that I wrote, as well as all of the
biographical materials I also wrote about audio notables, in
combination with a lot of articles contributed to the earlier
Encyclopedia version by others. It is available via Amazon. Some of
you clowns went into a rant about the so-called plagiarizing and you
know what that added up to? Nothing. Basically, what we have with you
people is a bunch of loud mouth, posturing showoffs who are all wind
and no sail.

My articles (most of which you have probably never seen) were mine and
mine alone. As for me parroting the ideas of Roy Allison, well, that
makes sense, because he was, and continues to be, correct about a lot
of audio issues. It stands to reason that my correct ideas would
parallel his correct ideas. I wonder whose ideas you parrot.

Regarding my articles and their so-called "boring, pedestrian,
plagiarized prose," I suggest you actually read some of them to make
sure you know what you are talking about. In case you or some of the
others here have missed some of them, go take a look at:

http://findarticles.com/p/search/?tb=art&qt="Howard%2C+Ferstler"

Maybe you will learn something. Going to that site and calling some of
them up will at least give a few of those here who are not back-biting
goons a chance to see just how petty and trivial you and others like
you happen to be.

Howard Ferstler

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
Ferstler > wrote:

> I praised Quad in the essay I did on them and basically used material
> that they had no objection to.

That's because they wrote it.

Stephen

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jan 7, 5:29*pm, Ferstler > wrote:
> On Jan 7, 5:23*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 2:03*pm, Ferstler > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 7, 2:45*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 7, 1:38*pm, Ferstler > wrote:
>
> > > > > The people who regularly hang out here need to get a life.
>
> > > > So what suicide method are you contemplating, Harold?
>
> > > Well, I am not about to make suggestions about how you should do
> > > yourself in. Pick any method that is not too complex for you to pull
> > > off. That probably narrows the options considerably.
>
> > That's an IKYABWAI, Harold. That's the sign of someone who cannot come
> > up with original ideas. It's well-known that most of your reviews were
> > simply regurgitated ideas from Roy Allison...maybe you should ask him
> > how to do it.
>
> > > Don't worry. I am not going to hang around, and I will probably take a
> > > shower after looking over some of the commentaries. I just dropped by
> > > to see if you goons had bothered to grow up. Obviously, after looking
> > > at numerous threads already, this has not happened.
>
> > Translation: we all remember how you plagiarized Quad when you
> > contributed to that so-called audio encyclopedia. And no, there's not
> > a whole new crowd here of people who don't know what an audio has-been
> > (or never-were) you actually are.
>
> > I bet taking showers is the highlight of your day, just like Lester
> > Burnham.
>
> > > I did post a comment or three within one other thread, "once upon a
> > > midnight clear," because I spotted a comment by Atkinson relating to
> > > my now temporary work at AudioXpress. I will be leaving that outfit,
> > > too. It's your kind of magazine, for sure, just like Atkinson's.
>
> > No, it's not. It's a rag. A decent publication wouldn't hire you once
> > they read your dry, boring, pedestrian, plagiarized prose.
>
> Well, I am not going to judge the magazine all that critically.
> Basically, it is supposed to be a forum where all ideas (weird as well
> as valid) can be explained. I told the publisher that was like
> inviting witch doctors to address medical conventions, and that is why
> I decided to not do any more work for them. Given its approach in some
> areas, it looks like just the kind of publication you would enjoy.
>
> I praised Quad in the essay I did on them and basically used material
> that they had no objection to. That was one of the few cases where I
> did something like that, and in all of those cases I was told by the
> company reps to use the materials as I saw fit. I did not literally
> plagiarize and edited their material to fit the style of the two-
> volume "The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound." The book has sold well,
> by the way, and everybody was satisfied. Incidentally, Routledge was
> so satisfied that they did a reduced-size budget version, called "The
> Routledge Guide to Music Technology," and it basically involved all of
> the technical articles that I wrote, as well as all of the
> biographical materials I also wrote about audio notables, in
> combination with a lot of articles contributed to the earlier
> Encyclopedia version by others. It is available via Amazon. Some of
> you clowns went into a rant about the so-called plagiarizing and you
> know what that added up to? Nothing. Basically, what we have with you
> people is a bunch of loud mouth, posturing showoffs who are all wind
> and no sail.
>
> My articles (most of which you have probably never seen) were mine and
> mine alone. As for me parroting the ideas of Roy Allison, well, that
> makes sense, because he was, and continues to be, correct about a lot
> of audio issues. It stands to reason that my correct ideas would
> parallel his correct ideas. I wonder whose ideas you parrot.
>
> Regarding my articles and their so-called "boring, pedestrian,
> plagiarized prose," I suggest you actually read some of them to make
> sure you know what you are talking about. In case you or some of the
> others here have missed some of them, go take a look at:
>
> http://findarticles.com/p/search/?tb=art&qt="Howard%2C+Ferstler"
>
> Maybe you will learn something. Going to that site and calling some of
> them up will at least give a few of those here who are not back-biting
> goons a chance to see just how petty and trivial you and others like
> you happen to be.

I fell asleep again, Harold, after the first few sentences. It's the
same claptrap you've always posted.

Just remember this: one time I was at CES with about 20 other
reviewers and journalists, and I brought up your name. Not a single
person knew who you were. That's your audio legacy. Nada.

[Ferstler]

On Jan 8, 12:56*am, Boon > wrote:
> On Jan 7, 5:29*pm, Ferstler > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 5:23*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 7, 2:03*pm, Ferstler > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 7, 2:45*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 7, 1:38*pm, Ferstler > wrote:
>
> > > > > > The people who regularly hang out here need to get a life.
>
> > > > > So what suicide method are you contemplating, Harold?
>
> > > > Well, I am not about to make suggestions about how you should do
> > > > yourself in. Pick any method that is not too complex for you to pull
> > > > off. That probably narrows the options considerably.
>
> > > That's an IKYABWAI, Harold. That's the sign of someone who cannot come
> > > up with original ideas. It's well-known that most of your reviews were
> > > simply regurgitated ideas from Roy Allison...maybe you should ask him
> > > how to do it.
>
> > > > Don't worry. I am not going to hang around, and I will probably take a
> > > > shower after looking over some of the commentaries. I just dropped by
> > > > to see if you goons had bothered to grow up. Obviously, after looking
> > > > at numerous threads already, this has not happened.
>
> > > Translation: we all remember how you plagiarized Quad when you
> > > contributed to that so-called audio encyclopedia. And no, there's not
> > > a whole new crowd here of people who don't know what an audio has-been
> > > (or never-were) you actually are.
>
> > > I bet taking showers is the highlight of your day, just like Lester
> > > Burnham.
>
> > > > I did post a comment or three within one other thread, "once upon a
> > > > midnight clear," because I spotted a comment by Atkinson relating to
> > > > my now temporary work at AudioXpress. I will be leaving that outfit,
> > > > too. It's your kind of magazine, for sure, just like Atkinson's.
>
> > > No, it's not. It's a rag. A decent publication wouldn't hire you once
> > > they read your dry, boring, pedestrian, plagiarized prose.
>
> > Well, I am not going to judge the magazine all that critically.
> > Basically, it is supposed to be a forum where all ideas (weird as well
> > as valid) can be explained. I told the publisher that was like
> > inviting witch doctors to address medical conventions, and that is why
> > I decided to not do any more work for them. Given its approach in some
> > areas, it looks like just the kind of publication you would enjoy.
>
> > I praised Quad in the essay I did on them and basically used material
> > that they had no objection to. That was one of the few cases where I
> > did something like that, and in all of those cases I was told by the
> > company reps to use the materials as I saw fit. I did not literally
> > plagiarize and edited their material to fit the style of the two-
> > volume "The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound." The book has sold well,
> > by the way, and everybody was satisfied. Incidentally, Routledge was
> > so satisfied that they did a reduced-size budget version, called "The
> > Routledge Guide to Music Technology," and it basically involved all of
> > the technical articles that I wrote, as well as all of the
> > biographical materials I also wrote about audio notables, in
> > combination with a lot of articles contributed to the earlier
> > Encyclopedia version by others. It is available via Amazon. Some of
> > you clowns went into a rant about the so-called plagiarizing and you
> > know what that added up to? Nothing. Basically, what we have with you
> > people is a bunch of loud mouth, posturing showoffs who are all wind
> > and no sail.
>
> > My articles (most of which you have probably never seen) were mine and
> > mine alone. As for me parroting the ideas of Roy Allison, well, that
> > makes sense, because he was, and continues to be, correct about a lot
> > of audio issues. It stands to reason that my correct ideas would
> > parallel his correct ideas. I wonder whose ideas you parrot.
>
> > Regarding my articles and their so-called "boring, pedestrian,
> > plagiarized prose," I suggest you actually read some of them to make
> > sure you know what you are talking about. In case you or some of the
> > others here have missed some of them, go take a look at:
>
> >http://findarticles.com/p/search/?tb=art&qt="Howard%2C+Ferstler"
>
> > Maybe you will learn something. Going to that site and calling some of
> > them up will at least give a few of those here who are not back-biting
> > goons a chance to see just how petty and trivial you and others like
> > you happen to be.
>
> I fell asleep again, Harold, after the first few sentences. It's the
> same claptrap you've always posted.
>
> Just remember this: one time I was at CES with about 20 other
> reviewers and journalists, and I brought up your name. Not a single
> person knew who you were. That's your audio legacy. Nada.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Be truthful. You did not fall asleep. You knashed your teeth and
powered your way through every word I wrote, and probably even clicked
on the site address that pulled up a partial list of my published
magazine work. Heck, do a Google search of my name. Then count the
number of hits - and this is for a guy who has been retired for
several years.

No doubt, the people you querried at CES were members of the lunatic
fringe. They probably had not heard of Thomas Edison or even Einstein,
either, although they probably lionize Nostradamus.

This ends my brief interaction with you people. Enjoy your inanities -
which are many.

Howard Ferstler

[Ferstler]

On Jan 7, 6:33*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> *Ferstler > wrote:
> > I praised Quad in the essay I did on them and basically used material
> > that they had no objection to.
>
> That's because they wrote it.
>
> Stephen

Obviously they wrote part of it, but I did make changes. And my
publisher had no problems with my approach with that particular item.
Yes, I told him what I had done, mainly because deadlines were getting
close and I had already submitted over 150 essays and had maybe 50
more to go. He basically laughed off your potential objections (he
knew your types, just like I do), and I find it comic that so many of
you ranted, railed, and threatened, and then went on to do absolutely
nothing to back up your pontifications.

The book got into print, and it did appear to sell well enough (given
its $300+ price), mostly to libraries, music schools, and university
institutions. Nobody (other than you computer-bound goofballs, and of
course that super-opportunistic goofball, John Atkinson) objected to
anything that was done. The book looks quite nice (my name is on the
title page, along with that of the main editor), and the followup
shorter version (minus the material on musicians and music), "The
Routledge Guide to Music Technology", apparently has sold well to lay
readers. It is a one-volume paperback (unlike the elephantine two-
volume Encyclopedia version) that is affordable.

And that is it for me, here, now. I suppose you people will continue
to harp and snap at each other, and maybe one of these days I will
drop in and actually rile some of you up all over again. I think that
most of you actually live to be riled up, which is why my initial post
was entitled "Get a life."

Howard Ferstler

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
Ferstler > wrote:

> On Jan 7, 6:33*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > *Ferstler > wrote:
> > > I praised Quad in the essay I did on them and basically used material
> > > that they had no objection to.
> >
> > That's because they wrote it.
> >
> > Stephen
>
> Obviously they wrote part of it, but I did make changes.

Miniscule changes that were less clear than the original



> And my
> publisher had no problems with my approach with that particular item.
> Yes, I told him what I had done, mainly because deadlines were getting
> close and I had already submitted over 150 essays and had maybe 50
> more to go. He basically laughed off your potential objections (he
> knew your types, just like I do), and I find it comic that so many of
> you ranted, railed, and threatened, and then went on to do absolutely
> nothing to back up your pontifications.

That's because plagiarism is a bad thing. If your editor didn't care, he
should also be condemned.

Do you claim expediency as an excuse for other wrong-doings?

> The book got into print, and it did appear to sell well enough (given
> its $300+ price), mostly to libraries, music schools, and university
> institutions. Nobody (other than you computer-bound goofballs, and of
> course that super-opportunistic goofball, John Atkinson) objected to
> anything that was done. The book looks quite nice (my name is on the
> title page, along with that of the main editor), and the followup
> shorter version (minus the material on musicians and music), "The
> Routledge Guide to Music Technology", apparently has sold well to lay
> readers. It is a one-volume paperback (unlike the elephantine two-
> volume Encyclopedia version) that is affordable.
>
> And that is it for me, here, now. I suppose you people will continue
> to harp and snap at each other, and maybe one of these days I will
> drop in and actually rile some of you up all over again. I think that
> most of you actually live to be riled up, which is why my initial post
> was entitled "Get a life."

Really? How is that any different from the rest of us?

Stephen

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jan 8, 11:41*am, Ferstler > wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:56*am, Boon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 5:29*pm, Ferstler > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 7, 5:23*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 7, 2:03*pm, Ferstler > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 7, 2:45*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jan 7, 1:38*pm, Ferstler > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > The people who regularly hang out here need to get a life.
>
> > > > > > So what suicide method are you contemplating, Harold?
>
> > > > > Well, I am not about to make suggestions about how you should do
> > > > > yourself in. Pick any method that is not too complex for you to pull
> > > > > off. That probably narrows the options considerably.
>
> > > > That's an IKYABWAI, Harold. That's the sign of someone who cannot come
> > > > up with original ideas. It's well-known that most of your reviews were
> > > > simply regurgitated ideas from Roy Allison...maybe you should ask him
> > > > how to do it.
>
> > > > > Don't worry. I am not going to hang around, and I will probably take a
> > > > > shower after looking over some of the commentaries. I just dropped by
> > > > > to see if you goons had bothered to grow up. Obviously, after looking
> > > > > at numerous threads already, this has not happened.
>
> > > > Translation: we all remember how you plagiarized Quad when you
> > > > contributed to that so-called audio encyclopedia. And no, there's not
> > > > a whole new crowd here of people who don't know what an audio has-been
> > > > (or never-were) you actually are.
>
> > > > I bet taking showers is the highlight of your day, just like Lester
> > > > Burnham.
>
> > > > > I did post a comment or three within one other thread, "once upon a
> > > > > midnight clear," because I spotted a comment by Atkinson relating to
> > > > > my now temporary work at AudioXpress. I will be leaving that outfit,
> > > > > too. It's your kind of magazine, for sure, just like Atkinson's.
>
> > > > No, it's not. It's a rag. A decent publication wouldn't hire you once
> > > > they read your dry, boring, pedestrian, plagiarized prose.
>
> > > Well, I am not going to judge the magazine all that critically.
> > > Basically, it is supposed to be a forum where all ideas (weird as well
> > > as valid) can be explained. I told the publisher that was like
> > > inviting witch doctors to address medical conventions, and that is why
> > > I decided to not do any more work for them. Given its approach in some
> > > areas, it looks like just the kind of publication you would enjoy.
>
> > > I praised Quad in the essay I did on them and basically used material
> > > that they had no objection to. That was one of the few cases where I
> > > did something like that, and in all of those cases I was told by the
> > > company reps to use the materials as I saw fit. I did not literally
> > > plagiarize and edited their material to fit the style of the two-
> > > volume "The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound." The book has sold well,
> > > by the way, and everybody was satisfied. Incidentally, Routledge was
> > > so satisfied that they did a reduced-size budget version, called "The
> > > Routledge Guide to Music Technology," and it basically involved all of
> > > the technical articles that I wrote, as well as all of the
> > > biographical materials I also wrote about audio notables, in
> > > combination with a lot of articles contributed to the earlier
> > > Encyclopedia version by others. It is available via Amazon. Some of
> > > you clowns went into a rant about the so-called plagiarizing and you
> > > know what that added up to? Nothing. Basically, what we have with you
> > > people is a bunch of loud mouth, posturing showoffs who are all wind
> > > and no sail.
>
> > > My articles (most of which you have probably never seen) were mine and
> > > mine alone. As for me parroting the ideas of Roy Allison, well, that
> > > makes sense, because he was, and continues to be, correct about a lot
> > > of audio issues. It stands to reason that my correct ideas would
> > > parallel his correct ideas. I wonder whose ideas you parrot.
>
> > > Regarding my articles and their so-called "boring, pedestrian,
> > > plagiarized prose," I suggest you actually read some of them to make
> > > sure you know what you are talking about. In case you or some of the
> > > others here have missed some of them, go take a look at:
>
> > >http://findarticles.com/p/search/?tb=art&qt="Howard%2C+Ferstler"
>
> > > Maybe you will learn something. Going to that site and calling some of
> > > them up will at least give a few of those here who are not back-biting
> > > goons a chance to see just how petty and trivial you and others like
> > > you happen to be.
>
> > I fell asleep again, Harold, after the first few sentences. It's the
> > same claptrap you've always posted.
>
> > Just remember this: one time I was at CES with about 20 other
> > reviewers and journalists, and I brought up your name. Not a single
> > person knew who you were. That's your audio legacy. Nada.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Be truthful. You did not fall asleep. You knashed your teeth and
> powered your way through every word I wrote, and probably even clicked
> on the site address that pulled up a partial list of my published
> magazine work. Heck, do a Google search of my name. Then count the
> number of hits - and this is for a guy who has been retired for
> several years.
>
> No doubt, the people you querried at CES were members of the lunatic
> fringe. They probably had not heard of Thomas Edison or even Einstein,
> either, although they probably lionize Nostradamus.
>
> This ends my brief interaction with you people. Enjoy your inanities -
> which are many.

According to my copy of the DSM-IV, your post reveals at least two
more psychological disorders than Arny (narcissistic personality
disorder, paranoid personality disorder) and Scott (Aspergers
syndrome) combined.

In fact, your posting habits reveal what is almost certainly clinical
depression.

[Bret L]

>
> Well, I was gone long enough for you guys to maybe shape up and become
> sane. After reading through some of the threads I can see that has not
> happened. Don't worry, I will not be hanging around. Maybe I will drop
> back in a few months (or years) to see if any of you have become
> interested enough in audio to actually post messages about the
> subject.

Well, we do once in a while, but no one cares.

[Bret L]

..
>
> I did post a comment or three within one other thread, "once upon a
> midnight clear," because I spotted a comment by Atkinson relating to
> my now temporary work at AudioXpress. I will be leaving that outfit,
> too. It's your kind of magazine, for sure, just like Atkinson's.
>

WTF did DCHA do, besides devote fifty plus years to the real audio
hobby?

[Bret L]

AudioXPress was simply the remnants of Audio Amateur, a magazine in
its heyday long on building, modifying, doing, and short on arcane
posturing. No one really cared whether every article was Peer Reviewed
for non-heresy. If a design worked and was builable by Joe Bagodonuts
with his trusty soldering iron and a Simpson 260, well, it didn't need
a nihil obstat and imprimatur.

There were some great writers, not all of whom agreed on all matters
of faith and morals with the Holy See.

And you know what? I still enjoy reading those old magazines, and
even building something out of them once in a great while. You ought
to try it.

[Bret L]

>
> According to my copy of the DSM-IV, your post reveals at least two
> more psychological disorders than Arny (narcissistic personality
> disorder, paranoid personality disorder) and Scott (Aspergers
> syndrome) combined.
>
> In fact, your posting habits reveal what is almost certainly clinical
> depression.

I'm now suffering from Vinylsnatch Envy. What are my disorders, huh?

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jan 9, 2:27*am, Bret L > wrote:
> > According to my copy of the DSM-IV, your post reveals at least two
> > more psychological disorders than Arny (narcissistic personality
> > disorder, paranoid personality disorder) and Scott (Aspergers
> > syndrome) combined.
>
> > In fact, your posting habits reveal what is almost certainly clinical
> > depression.
>
> *I'm now suffering from Vinylsnatch Envy. What are my disorders, huh?

We've already determined you're autistic.

[GeoSynch]

The Plagiarist scribbled:

> The people who regularly hang out here need to get a life.

Normally, the Gimp would be drooling and chomping at the bit at the return of
'clerkie' but as of late nary a peep from the Pudge.

So, has old Boy George finally succumbed from forestalling the inevitable long
enough?

Be that as it may, all one can say is: "Good riddance."

[Clyde Slick]

On Jan 8, 12:53*pm, Ferstler > wrote:
> On Jan 7, 6:33*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *Ferstler > wrote:
> > > I praised Quad in the essay I did on them and basically used material
> > > that they had no objection to.
>
> > That's because they wrote it.
>
> > Stephen
>
> Obviously they wrote part of it, but I did make changes. And my
> publisher had no problems with my approach with that particular item.
> Yes, I told him what I had done, mainly because deadlines were getting
> close and I had already submitted over 150 essays and had maybe 50
> more to go. He basically laughed off your potential objections (he
> knew your types, just like I do), and I find it comic that so many of
> you ranted, railed, and threatened, and then went on to do absolutely
> nothing to back up your pontifications.
>
> The book got into print, and it did appear to sell well enough (given
> its $300+ price), mostly to libraries, music schools, and university
> institutions. Nobody (other than you computer-bound goofballs, and of
> course that super-opportunistic goofball, John Atkinson) objected to
> anything that was done. The book looks quite nice (my name is on the
> title page, along with that of the main editor), and the followup
> shorter version (minus the material on musicians and music), "The
> Routledge Guide to Music Technology", apparently has sold well to lay
> readers. It is a one-volume paperback (unlike the elephantine two-
> volume Encyclopedia version) that is affordable.
>
> And that is it for me, here, now. I suppose you people will continue
> to harp and snap at each other, and maybe one of these days I will
> drop in and actually rile some of you up all over again. I think that
> most of you actually live to be riled up, which is why my initial post
> was entitled "Get a life."
>
> Howard Ferstler

LOL!!!!!!
I haven't posted here, or even lurked here in six months.
But tonight i was awake with insomnia at 4 in the morning, and
lo and behold, Howard is back! You are the perfect cure for my
insomnia.
Your turgid prose and audio clown act is certainly putting me back to
sleep.
Yawn!, I'm crawling back to bed, if I ever have trouble sleeping
again, I'll' check back in.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Feb 7, 6:49*pm, Soupe du jour > wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:38:07 -0800 (PST), Ferstler >
> wrote:
>
> >The people who regularly hang out here need to get a life.
>
> >Howard Ferstler
>
> Assuming this is really Ferstler, he seems to have issues.
>
> Why would he want to pop back in here and insult everyone? What does
> it accomplish?
>
> I suppose it might give him some temporary thrills, but that's about
> it.
>
> A puzzle...

It is indeed Ferstler. I don't think he gets a thrill from this.
Rather, I think he checks RAO occasionally to see if there's a new
crowd hanging out. But after Dave Weil caught Howard plagiarizing the
Quad website for the Routledge encyclopedia, he was pretty humiliated.
If it wasn't for his "wrecking ball" attitude, he might have been
welcomed.