Mr. Middius said:

Marc Phillips said:

I have no use for the southern part of the state, by the
way. The place is full of blacksguards.

I'm not surprised.

When you're not there Phillips, there is one less.

Tell me, Arny...did you look up "blackguard" on the same site as you did
for
"spotted dick"?

Harold can be such a knave.

Perhaps his increasing use of arcane language explains why he has become pretty
much unemployable as a writer. That, and the plagiarism thing.

Boon

Marc Phillips wrote:

Perhaps his increasing use of arcane language explains why he has become pretty
much unemployable as a writer. That, and the plagiarism thing.

The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound should be out this month,
in all of its Ferstler-contribution glory. And of course I
continue to publish articles in The Sensible Sound.

I have done, and continue to do, a lot more published audio
writing than you do, slick.

Leave it to a profane lowbrow such as yourself to call some
of the more descriptive terms found within the King's
English arcane.

Howard Ferstler

Howard said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

Perhaps his increasing use of arcane language explains why he has become
pretty
much unemployable as a writer. That, and the plagiarism thing.

The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound should be out this month,
in all of its Ferstler-contribution glory. And of course I
continue to publish articles in The Sensible Sound.

I have done, and continue to do, a lot more published audio
writing than you do, slick.

I doubt it. I continue to publish bi-monthly, and that's with a day job.


Leave it to a profane lowbrow such as yourself to call some
of the more descriptive terms found within the King's
English arcane.

Do you know what arcane means?

Boon

Marc Phillips wrote:

Howard said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

Perhaps his increasing use of arcane language explains why he has become
pretty
much unemployable as a writer. That, and the plagiarism thing.

The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound should be out this month,
in all of its Ferstler-contribution glory. And of course I
continue to publish articles in The Sensible Sound.

I have done, and continue to do, a lot more published audio
writing than you do, slick.

I doubt it. I continue to publish bi-monthly, and that's with a day job.

Religious tracts do not count, slick, nor do posts on RAO.

Leave it to a profane lowbrow such as yourself to call some
of the more descriptive terms found within the King's
English arcane.

Do you know what arcane means?

Boon

That you would consider the term "blackguard" as somehow
arcane reveals much about your intellectual depth.

Howard Ferstler

Howard said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

Howard said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

Perhaps his increasing use of arcane language explains why he has become
pretty
much unemployable as a writer. That, and the plagiarism thing.

The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound should be out this month,
in all of its Ferstler-contribution glory. And of course I
continue to publish articles in The Sensible Sound.

I have done, and continue to do, a lot more published audio
writing than you do, slick.

I doubt it. I continue to publish bi-monthly, and that's with a day job.

Religious tracts do not count, slick, nor do posts on RAO.

You know, when you left here in disgrace for plagiarizing, I was under the
impression that you and I wouldn't need to have this conversation over and over
anymore. So how stupid are you?


Leave it to a profane lowbrow such as yourself to call some
of the more descriptive terms found within the King's
English arcane.

Do you know what arcane means?

Boon

That you would consider the term "blackguard" as somehow
arcane reveals much about your intellectual depth.

And yet you obviously lack the intelligence to explain why.

Boon

Marc Phillips wrote:

I doubt it. I continue to publish bi-monthly, and that's with a day job.

Religious tracts do not count, slick, nor do posts on RAO.

You know, when you left here in disgrace for plagiarizing,

I left, because you people are more interested in malarkey
than in audio. However, nothing lasts forever, and I assumed
that maybe some newcomers were now on hand to read and
learn. That they might be "learning" something from you
"doofii" (that's plural for doofus) prompted me to come back
and box your collective ears for a while.

I was under the
impression that you and I wouldn't need to have this conversation over and over
anymore. So how stupid are you?

Smart enough to be successfully boxing your ears, doofus.

Leave it to a profane lowbrow such as yourself to call some
of the more descriptive terms found within the King's
English arcane.

Do you know what arcane means?

That you would consider the term "blackguard" as somehow
arcane reveals much about your intellectual depth.

And yet you obviously lack the intelligence to explain why.

Am I supposed to take the time to unravel all the
commentaries of a fool and a blackguard?

Howard Ferstler

Howard said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

I doubt it. I continue to publish bi-monthly, and that's with a day
job.

Religious tracts do not count, slick, nor do posts on RAO.

You know, when you left here in disgrace for plagiarizing,

I left, because you people are more interested in malarkey
than in audio. However, nothing lasts forever, and I assumed
that maybe some newcomers were now on hand to read and
learn. That they might be "learning" something from you
"doofii" (that's plural for doofus) prompted me to come back
and box your collective ears for a while.

You left because you were caught plagiarizing. You left, by your own
admission, because the outcry was too over whelming for you. You were
embarassed and ashamed. So were you lying then, or are you lying now?


I was under the
impression that you and I wouldn't need to have this conversation over and
over
anymore. So how stupid are you?

Smart enough to be successfully boxing your ears, doofus.

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.
I do the same thing with Arny and his pedophilia. 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. I don't think
it's okay to be a fraud or a pedophile. I guess you could say I have a thing
against blackguards.


Leave it to a profane lowbrow such as yourself to call some
of the more descriptive terms found within the King's
English arcane.

Do you know what arcane means?

That you would consider the term "blackguard" as somehow
arcane reveals much about your intellectual depth.

And yet you obviously lack the intelligence to explain why.

Am I supposed to take the time to unravel all the
commentaries of a fool and a blackguard?

In other words, yes, you lack the intelligence. Thanks, slick. And by the
way, I bet Peter Walker thought you were a blackguard, too.

Boon

Marc Phillips wrote:

Howard said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

I doubt it. I continue to publish bi-monthly, and that's with a day
job.

Religious tracts do not count, slick, nor do posts on RAO.

You know, when you left here in disgrace for plagiarizing,

I left, because you people are more interested in malarkey
than in audio. However, nothing lasts forever, and I assumed
that maybe some newcomers were now on hand to read and
learn. That they might be "learning" something from you
"doofii" (that's plural for doofus) prompted me to come back
and box your collective ears for a while.

You left because you were caught plagiarizing. You left, by your own
admission, because the outcry was too over whelming for you. You were
embarassed and ashamed. So were you lying then, or are you lying now?

As I stated in another thread, no major publisher would
publish material that was plagiarized. (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.

In any case, you pinheads clearly overrate your impact on
the real world.

I was under the
impression that you and I wouldn't need to have this conversation over and
over
anymore. So how stupid are you?

Smart enough to be successfully boxing your ears, doofus.

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 left to renovate my home (and announced a reduction in
writing work in a TSS column to that effect), with the
project still not completed. Almost, though, and so I am
ramping up my writing work almost to pre-renovation levels.
Not quite as much, simply because I am thoroughly enjoying
retirement and do not want to work too hard. Heck, I want to
enjoy the updated house.

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.

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.

I don't think
it's okay to be a fraud or a pedophile. I guess you could say I have a thing
against blackguards.

Well, you obviously have a "thing," but it does not have
much to do with your being against blackguards and
pedophiles.

Leave it to a profane lowbrow such as yourself to call some
of the more descriptive terms found within the King's
English arcane.

Do you know what arcane means?

That you would consider the term "blackguard" as somehow
arcane reveals much about your intellectual depth.

And yet you obviously lack the intelligence to explain why.

Am I supposed to take the time to unravel all the
commentaries of a fool and a blackguard?

In other words, yes, you lack the intelligence. Thanks, slick.

Actually, what you said made no sense, whatsoever. Why work
to "unravel" nonsense written by a doofus and blackguard who
is obsessed with phantom pedophiles?

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.

Howard Ferstler

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

"doofii" (that's plural for doofus)

It's also an apt description of your audio gear.

Howard said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

Howard said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

I doubt it. I continue to publish bi-monthly, and that's with a day
job.

Religious tracts do not count, slick, nor do posts on RAO.

You know, when you left here in disgrace for plagiarizing,

I left, because you people are more interested in malarkey
than in audio. However, nothing lasts forever, and I assumed
that maybe some newcomers were now on hand to read and
learn. That they might be "learning" something from you
"doofii" (that's plural for doofus) prompted me to come back
and box your collective ears for a while.

You left because you were caught plagiarizing. You left, by your own
admission, because the outcry was too over whelming for you. You were
embarassed and ashamed. So were you lying then, or are you lying now?

As I stated in another thread, no major publisher would
publish material that was plagiarized.

And that's why the whole project was delayed.

(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.


In any case, you pinheads clearly overrate your impact on
the real world.

We impacted your world, big time.


I was under the
impression that you and I wouldn't need to have this conversation over
and
over
anymore. So how stupid are you?

Smart enough to be successfully boxing your ears, doofus.

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?


I left to renovate my home (and announced a reduction in
writing work in a TSS column to that effect), with the
project still not completed. Almost, though, and so I am
ramping up my writing work almost to pre-renovation levels.
Not quite as much, simply because I am thoroughly enjoying
retirement and do not want to work too hard. Heck, I want to
enjoy the updated house.

Crazy what $500 buys at Ikea, huh?


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.


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.


I don't think
it's okay to be a fraud or a pedophile. I guess you could say I have a
thing
against blackguards.

Well, you obviously have a "thing," but it does not have
much to do with your being against blackguards and
pedophiles.

Non-response noted.


Leave it to a profane lowbrow such as yourself to call some
of the more descriptive terms found within the King's
English arcane.

Do you know what arcane means?

That you would consider the term "blackguard" as somehow
arcane reveals much about your intellectual depth.

And yet you obviously lack the intelligence to explain why.

Am I supposed to take the time to unravel all the
commentaries of a fool and a blackguard?

In other words, yes, you lack the intelligence. Thanks, slick.

Actually, what you said made no sense, whatsoever. Why work
to "unravel" nonsense written by a doofus and blackguard who
is obsessed with phantom pedophiles?

I agree. Again, I'm not sure why you are bringing this up, though.


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.

Boon

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.

(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.

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. Of course, one advantage I have over you
is that I can write.

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? Of course, an amp that
expensive is overkill, but admittedly a free sample would be
just fine. 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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Howard Ferstler

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