Howard said:
Marc Phillips wrote:
Howard said:
As I stated in another thread, no major publisher would
publish material that was plagiarized.
And that's why the whole project was delayed.
You obviously do not know much about book publishing, spud.
You no doubt speculate about that topic the same way you
speculate about audio.
Looks like you're the one who's speculating, slick. Seems like that's all
Internet geeks like you and Arny do...speculate about others and try to pass it
off as a reasonable argument.
(I assume that you
goofballs joined John Atkinson in contacting my publisher
about my "crimes.") The publisher, Routledge, is a branch of
Taylor & Francis, one of the biggest publishing outfits in
the world, and they not only were happy with my work but
actually contacted me a bit later about doing still another
book. I passed on that, because a similar and very good book
on the subject they wanted dealt with had already been
published in several editions over the years. They did tell
me that they would be in touch about new projects in time.
So you say. It is difficult to take the word of a known plagiarizer.
Say, if I am this "known plagiarizer" why don't you do
something about it? Be a man, Biff.
I've already done something about it, Clyde. I mentioned your plagiarism in
print.
In any case, you pinheads clearly overrate your impact on
the real world.
We impacted your world, big time.
I am still writing and publishing, Biff, which is more than
we can say for you.
No, it's not. I am writing and publishing also.
Of course, one advantage I have over you
is that I can write.
I'm a better writer than you.
You're not boxing my ears. I am here to tell you that as long as you
think
it's okay to come back here and post your drivel, I think it's okay to
continually remind people that you were drummed out of here for
plagiarizing.
Drummed out of here? Give me a break, doofus. Nobody gets
"drummed out of here" on RAO. Hell, you are still here, and
in spite of you being a doofus, it appears you will be
staying on for quite a while.
I've been here for six years. I've made friends here, made business
contacts
here, and even received writing assignments here. I won a $4000 power
amplifier here. Why would I leave?
Ah, the benefits of life in a fool's paradise. A $4000 power
amplifier! Who in the hell here would award you something
like that for hanging around RAO?
You have just about the worst memory I've seen. Thanks for reminding me that
I'm wasting my time arguing with a senile old fogey.
Of course, an amp that
expensive is overkill, but admittedly a free sample would be
just fine.
It was free, and it broke down four times in one year. I traded it for
something more valuable, and I replaced it with an amp that cost one-fourth as
much and sounded better to my ears.
But thanks again for speculating wildly and trying to pass it off as a valid
argument, slick.
Only a jerk would pay real money for something
like that, of course. Ironically, a good $600 receiver with
Dolby Pro Logic II would probably sound just as good - until
you kicked in the three surround channels. Then it would
sound better.
That would be the opinion of someone with documented substandard
hearing...Howard Ferstler!
I do the same thing with Arny and his pedophilia.
Again, that you obsess about this pedophile situation says
way more about you than it does about him. The guy with a
problem is you, buddy boy.
Yes, I have a problem with people who talk about fondling their dead
teenaged
sons in their coffins on audio newsgroups. I also have problems with
people
like you who think it is A-OK to do so.
I think that this affectation of yours is either a figment
of your imagination or a conscious effort to malign the
reputation of an individual who clearly knows more about
audio than you. Probably a bit of both, because I think you
are both devious and not able to row your mental boat with
both oars.
Thanks again for your wild speculation. I'm sure it will come in handy one
day, because even a stopped clock is right twice a day. But not right now.
He is so addicted to the
Internet that he would rather be known for the fact that he's a
pedophile
than
to not post here. You see, I have principles about such things.
Principles? Give me a break. You are a doofus who is
obsessed with pedophiles.
You are a doofus who thinks pedophilia is okay as long as you hate high-end
audio.
You are the obsessive who invents demons to hide the fact
that you are an audio ignoramus.
You are the Internet geek who somehow links a pedophile's inexcusable behavior
to his views about audio.
And by the
way, I bet Peter Walker thought you were a blackguard, too.
All those involved will have to read what I wrote about Quad
loudspeakers (and dozens of other manufacturers, topics, and
individuals) in The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound to find
out.
Heavily edited from the original submission, all will note.
Both the original and the rewrite are fully complementary to
the man. You need to get out more.
Those two statements are completed disconnected. Schizophrenics do that.
As for my personal views
of flat planar type or line-source loudspeakers (not
included in the Encyclopedia material, by the way), well, I
am not particularly impressed with their potential in some
versions. Yes, they can sound quite good, but so can a lot
of more conventional designs that cost considerably less.
Name one.
Incidentally, I reviewed one flat-panel line-source design
in issue 94 of The Sensible Sound and rather liked it.
However, the reasons I liked it would probably go right over
your pointed head, Biff.
Considering that you appear to be schizophrenic, you may be right.
Boon
|