Talk:Franz Liszt/Archive 6

Liszt's playing the "Hammerklavier Sonata"
At end of chapter 2.3 someone added the traditional story of Liszt's presumed playing Beethoven's "Hammerklavier Sonata" in Paris. However, this is just another one of the fairy tales as invented by Lina Ramann. She had in the Revue et Gazette musicale of June 12, 1836, found the article "Listz" (sic!) by Berlioz. Berlioz wrote, Liszt had "more than once" performed at the salons Erard. In a later part of the article Berlioz mentioned a Sonata by Beethoven with a "divine" Adagio. Ramann, in her Franz Liszt als Künstler und Mensch, gave a translation to German of the article. At the point where the Sonata is mentioned, she added "(op.106)", the opus-number of the "Hammerklavier-Sonata", but this is not included in the original. As further source Ramann took an article by Joseph Mainzer (one of Schumann's Parisian correspondents) in the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik of 1836. According to Mainzer, Liszt had on one day performed at the Salons Erard and on the next day at the Salons Pleyel. Mainzer, however, did not mention any piece by Beethoven at all.

Liszt's personal copy of Ramann's book shows that Mainzer's account was in parts wrong. Liszt added the remark, "Gar kein Pleyel" ("No Pleyel at all"). From another article in the Revue et Gazette musicale it is known that Liszt had performed twice at the Salons Erard. The dates can be taken from Liszt's letters to Marie d'Agoult. He had performed on May 18 and on May 28, 1836. The first occasion was a kind of private concert to which Liszt himself had invited the audience. According to Berlioz in his article "Listz", Liszt had exclusively played own compositions. Some of them are known from one of Liszt's letters to Marie d'Agoult. He had played his Fantasies "Les Puritains" and "La Serenata e l'Orgia". In addition to this, Berlioz mentioned Liszt's Fantasy "La Juive". Berlioz also mentioned a Fantasy "Il Pirata", but this was corrected by Liszt in his personal copy of Ramann's book to "Puritaner". According to Meyerbeer's diary, the private concert on May 18 took place at midday and had a duration of an hour. Since this time would already have been filled with the "Hammerklavier-Sonata" alone, Liszt can't possibly have played it at this event.

On May 28 Liszt gave a dinner for some of his friends. (Dinner was at late afternoon in France.) They afterwards went to Erard where Liszt played his Waltz op.6, again his Fantasy "La Serenata e l'Orgia", and a fraction of one of his Swiss pieces to them. The repertoire is known from one of Liszt's letters to Marie d'Agoult. Neither at this event Liszt played anything by Beethoven.

Working through Berlioz' "Literary works" and through his letters to Liszt leads to the result that he indeed frequently mentioned a "divine" Adagio by Beethoven which had been played by Liszt. In one of his essays, however, Berlioz also mentioned the key of the Sonata. It was C-sharp Minor, while the key of the Adagio of the "Hammerklavier Sonata" is F-sharp Major. Hence Liszt had played not the "Hammerklavier Sonata", but the first movement of the so-called "Moonlight-Sonata" op.27/2, a rather easy piece. He had neither done it at the Salons Erard, but at Ernest Legouvé's home. The event was described by Berlioz, and in nearly identical kind by Legouvé in his Memoirs as well. According to these sources, it had been absolutely dark when Liszt played the piece, and Berlioz was weeping like a willow. Since it was dark and Berlioz' eyes were full of tears, he can't possibly have compared Liszt's playing with a score. This part of his article "Listz" was an exaggeration, and there are some more of them besides. The first Virtuoso who played the "Hammerklavier Sonata" in public was not Liszt, but Mortier de la Fontaine, by the way.

As additional remark to the affair, there are many points in the "Hammerklavier Sonata" where it is until today controversially disputed which notes are to be played. If a person just repeats the old legend with regard to Liszt without mentioning problematic aspects of Beethoven's score (for example A. Walker), he just shows that his knowledge of the "Hammerklavier Sonata" is very poor. In the second paragraph of chapter 2.4 nearly everything is misleading and wrong. The term "severe", as used in this particular context, is a Weasel word.85.22.23.42 (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"Performing Style" section
This part is a disgrace in its current version, with misguiding generelizations, poorly choosed sources and even plain factual errors all over the place. Rewriting this section should be one of the more urgent tasks for this article, especially so as this is a highly relevant topic for someone with such a reputation in this field as Franz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.228.99 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you please give some tiny bits of concrete details?85.22.23.42 (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the middle of the new year's eve celebrations here, but the first statement I reacted to was that "Liszt's playing during this period was in reviews described as very brilliant and very precise, like a living metronome". There is no citation showing who wrote he sounded like a living metronome, and even if there is a review somewhere using the phrase I for one would think twice before including it in an article attempting to characterize his playing. Even Liszt's earliest concert tours were, with very few exceptions, hugely successful and the vast majority of the extant reviews are highly positive. Even if 99% of them give very weak descriptions of how he actually sounded I can't really see they all describe someone playing like a living metronome. Furthermore, I know of no really good sources from the 1820s that describe how Liszt really sounded (other than in imprecise adjectives like "brilliant", "remarkable" etc), but one of the most detailed early descriptions can be found in the diary of Auguste Boissier from the winter of 1831/1832, and the picture that emerges there is a completely different one. From there we learn that Liszt was a pianist with an unusually fine sense of sound, with abandonment, charm and truth in musical expression as prime characteristics, that he was the enemy of stilted, affected and contorted expressions, and that it was a "liberated feeling" listening to him. All this in rather stark contrast to what is being portrayed at wikipedia currently.


 * Regarding the virtuoso years, the first biographical part has already been dealt with earlier in the article, and whoever wrote this then begins by saying that some of Liszt's contemporaries called him a charlatan performer (note some, and that specifically who, when and in what context are not mentioned), and then keeps building on this making it appear is if he actually was a charlatan! There are ample of evidence from highly distinguished musicians (Schumann, Mendelssohn, Alkan, etc) that show that he was in fact held in extremely high regard, far from "merely a fashionable virtuoso entertainer lacking inspiration" as is claimed here. If this statement has a source somewhere, I can imagine it is meant to point out that Liszt was at this time still not recognized as a composer of any greater merit. But in this section it is his piano playing we are looking at, and views on his abilities as a composer must not be confused with those on him as a pianist.81.225.228.99 (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Much is to be said to this. Unfortunately my free time is somewhat restricted today. Thus I must ask you for some patience.85.22.8.125 (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Mine has been the opposite today, so I have taken the chance to clear up the Repertoire section a little (also full of nonsense earlier), and have also slowly begun working on the Performing section. It is a considerable task to rewrite this one properly however, I could certainly use some help if there are more people here who feel like improving on it.81.225.228.99 (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Returning to the claim of those "misguiding generalizations, poorly chosen sources and even plain factual errors all over the place", the sentence, "Liszt's playing during this period was in reviews described as very brilliant and very precise, like a living metronome." says exactly that what everyone will take as impression when reading the reviews. Especially the term "like a living metronome" was taken from a review of a concert on April 11, 1826, in Marseille, to be found in: Eckhardt, Maria: Liszt à Marseille, in: Studia Musicologica Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae 24 (1982), p.165. Liszt was praised for his precision and his absolutely never changing the tempo. The reviewer then wrote:


 * cette précision remarquable est digne de rivaliser celle du métronome.


 * ("This remarkable precision is worthy of competing that of the metronome.")

There is no need for wondering, since Liszt's father had forced him to practice scales and brilliant etudes with metronome for several hours every day. On the other hand, as characteristic for Liszt, he was through all parts of his concert career, in Italy, Germany, Great Britain and France, frequently criticized for a lack of sensitiveness, expressiveness and emotions. Examples with regard to his first concerts in winter and spring 1822-23 in Vienna can be found in: Legány, Deszö: Franz Liszt, Unbekannte Presse und Briefe aus Wien 1822-1886, Wien 1984, p.17ff. Another example with a very detailed description of Liszt's concert habits is a letter of spring 1825 or 1826 by one Lecourt, himself advocate at Marseille, to Jenny Montgolfier, piano teacher at Lyon, to be found in the above cited essay by M. Eckhardt, p.168f.

"Huge success" of a virtuoso means that he gets a plenty of money and applause from the crowd. Very critical remarks with regard to this can be found in Liszt's book about Chopin. According to Liszt, persons of his audience had not attended his concerts for the purpose of listening to his music, but for the purpose of having listened to him and being able to talk about it. A couple of bars of a Waltz and a fugitive reminding of an emotion had been enough for them. Thus "huge success" as such has nearly nothing to do with artistic merits. A person with a prominent name who plays rapid passages and makes much noise with octaves will surely be adored by the crowd. Looking at the pop business of our days shows that even much less is sufficient. While it is obvious that most of those highly praised stars have practically no education at all and can hardly sing or play an instrument, they are nevertheless posed and by many accepted as great artists. This is not to say that Liszt was not able to do better things. At his concerts during his tours, however, he did not ask for aesthetics, but wanted to gain money and applause.

Auguste Boissier, mother of Valerie Boissier, wrote nothing else than that what every lady would write about her daughter's admired piano teacher. Liszt's own opinion with regard to his playing was more realistic. In the lesson of January 11, 1832, he told the ladies Boisssier that his playing was rather bad. For this reason he planned to give up his teaching career, concentrating all his forces on his development as artist instead. In fact, it had been nearly two years earlier when on April 29, 1830, he had for a last time performed in public. Since then he had had love adventures with several ladies, but done practically nothing in favour of his career as artist. At end of 1831 he had made the acquaintance of Chopin and Mendelssohn, both first rank artists who had arrived in Paris with a suitcase full of masterworks. Chopin's first impression of Liszt had been that he was a zero as pianist. Mendelssohn wrote in a letter to his sister Fanny that Liszt was the most dilettantish of all dilettantes. Liszt as composer did not yet exist. He was not “misunderstood” because of the “progressive style" of his compositions, but actually had written nearly nothing of artistic value.

The term "charlatan" was taken from a biographical essay (in fact a brochure of more than 100 pages) about Liszt, published in May 1843 under the name Duverger. It was presumably written by Marie d'Agoult and was authorized by Liszt himself, who read it before publication. "Charlatan" was meant as description of Liszt's performing style during the early 1830s in Paris. He wanted success, i. e. applause, at any cost. Due to his tricks and strange habits he was regarded as a person who wants to pose himself as genius, but exaggerates everything like a bad actor from the province. The sceptical view in the biographical essay was shared by Berlioz, d'Ortigue and many others, all of them close friends of Liszt. Their opinion is confirmed by descriptions in the contemporary press.

The term, "merely a fashionable virtuoso entertainer, lacking inspiration" was taken from Michael Saffle's book Liszt in Germany, p.211f. Saffle had collected and evaluated huge amounts of many hundreds of contemporary reviews. It was Saffle's conclusion that Liszt, since 1842 at least, was regarded merely as fashionable virtuoso entertainer, lacking inspiration. Saffle, himself rather fanatical admirer of Liszt, is worldwide recognized as top Liszt expert.

Coming to Schumann, Mendelssohn, Alkan and "etc.". I'll skip those "etc." (whoever they are) and restrict myself to the others. Concerning Alkan, nothing more is known from him than that he heard Liszt's playing around 1830 in Paris and found it awfully brilliant. Nothing less, but nothing more. The very complex development of the relations between Liszt, Schumann and Mendelssohn can't be explained in short. (Nothing less than a rather thick book will do.) When in spring 1840 Mendelssohn met Liszt in Leipzig, he tried to give friendly help to him. Liszt had made enemies because of his arrogance. Mendelssohn thus arranged a joint concert with Liszt. In winter 1841-42 he met Liszt in Berlin. His opinion of Liszt's playing was now very sceptical. In one of his letters he gave an account of Liszt's playing the fugue of Beethoven's "Hammerklavier Sonata". According to this, Liszt had worked very fast and indistinct through the piece. Hitting many false keys, Liszt had here skipped some bars and there added some. Mendelssohn also mentioned Liszt's arrogance again. Another description can be found in Schumann's diary. On August 7, 1842, he met the actors Schröder Devrient and Charlotte von Hagn in Dresden. They were talking about Liszt's stay at Berlin. Schröder Devrient imitated in most ridiculous kinds Liszt's behaving. Without Liszt knew it, they were all laughing about him.

Schumann, who in spring 1840 had strong problems of his private life, by this time needed Liszt's help. Friedrich Wieck, father of Clara Wieck, had at the civil court at Dresden claimed, Schumann's piano works were unplayable. For the purpose of refuting this, Schumann had asked Liszt to play some of his pieces at one of his concerts at Leipzig. Thus Liszt played a selection of the Carnaval, and Schumann praised Liszt's performances in reviews. Since Schumann needed his own reviews as proof at the civil court, he published some of them under an anonymous name. (All this turned out as superfluous since the court did not take interest in the question whether Schumann's compositions were unplayable or not.) According to other reviews, Liszt's performance of a piano concerto by Mendelssohn had been very bad, and this even in technical respect. Clara Wieck, who had previously heard Liszt in spring 1838 in Vienna, found his performance of the selection from the Carnaval disappointing. She also criticized that Liszt was permanently looking at the score instead of playing from memory. Schumann in some of his reviews wrote excuses like, "An artist is no god." and similar kinds. From his private letters it is known that he actually did not like Liszt's compositions and his playing style. Liszt's arrogance was criticized by Schumann as well. After Liszt had in the beginning of December 1841 for a further time performed in Leipzig, he received a very dry review in the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik. According to this, it was at least not to be feared that anyone would follow the example as given by him. The impression from Clara Schumann's diary entries and private letters is much worse. Since 1842 Liszt was merely a caricature of an artist in Schumann's view.

As conclusion, it is my impression that Liszt had wasted much time and energy with his tours. Precisely this was Marie d'Agoult's constant complaint. His playing at his concerts and his seeking for the applause of Countesses and Barons were surely the mortal part of his personality. With his talents he would have better done, staying at home and composing his masterworks. In this case he would not have been Liszt, of course. So, the cat is biting the tail. This tension between different aspects of Liszt's personality is characteristic for him, and it doesn't make sense to hide it.85.22.5.103 (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I will try to stay civilized here, but your "scholarship" makes me so angry that I can't give any promises...


 * First, the reviewer's intention with the metronome remark as you give it here was quite different from how you put it at wikipedia. To say someone played like a living metronome like you did is a terribly hard thing to say on any pianist, but to say "The remarkable precision is worth of competing with that of the metronome" is something quite different. If you are going quote reviews, do it properly.


 * As to Mme Boissier, she did most certainly not say what "every lady would write about her daughter's piano teacher". She did much more than that in that her diary offers some real descriptive remarks about Liszt's playing, and for this her diary is the best source I am aware of from this time. Reviews of Liszt's playing seldom offers anything beyond "we have never heard the third movement played so brilliantly", or "we wish the opening sonata had been played more expressively" and similar which are virtually useless to posterity to try to build a picture of how he actually sounded. But Boissier's text does this, and it is thus a gold mine of first hand information.


 * Regarding Saffle, I don't question his remarks, but I very seriously question your use of them. Looking this up now I see they are indeed used in the context of Liszt as a composer (even though I can't find the "lacking inspiration" part), and has absolutely nothing to do with his artistic value as a pianist. Liszt's development and recognition as a composer is another interesting story, but what, I wonder, do such opinions have to do with his "Performing Style"? The way you put it made it seem as if he wasn't taken all too seriously compared to other pianists. On the contrary, on the previous page even, Saffle writes "no one disputed seriously that he was the greatest living pianist, probably greatest of all time". As a pianist, he was thus held in very high regard.


 * As to the rest of your text, Liszt's mannerisms at the keyboard are well known, but to try to imply that he was a charlatan and a media production a la Lang Lang like you did at his very wikipedia article is frankly disgusting. You know perfectly well how the relationship between d'Agoult and Liszt was by 1843, and how she kept treating him for many years after this, and to hold up her article as a typical example is very poor judgement. Likewise in the case of the Schumanns, whose friendship with Liszt also went downhill from March 1840. Before their break he was full of praise of Liszt's playing. As to the poor performance of Mendelssohn's concerto, the Carnval numbers, and Schumann's "No man is a god" review, they all relate to the same concert as far as I recall, and Schumann's review continues with "and yet the visible strain under which Liszt played on this occassion was the natural consequence of all that he had been through" (which was a time of illness, a terribly hectic concert schedule and I believe even a long journey ending only on the morning of the concert, PLUS it should be mentioned that Liszt didn't know the Mendelssohn concerto - he played it through virtually at sight). No comment on how Liszt played the Caranval excerpts, but if you choose Clara to judge them it must again be remembered that they were not exactly best friends at this time and that they kept quarelling over how Schumann's music should be played for decades. Robert, by the way, reviewed more than just this of Liszt's concerts that month, and wrote most favourably of others where his music was not played. Did he need those for his court as well?


 * If you have no other business here than to throw dirt on Liszt and spread misinformation I suggest you spare wikipedia from your "research" - we can well do without it. I for one have had enough of all this drivel already, both regarding Liszt as pianist and his repertoire (a section which also bore your unmistakable quality of information, I assume you were the author there as well).81.225.228.99 (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear 81.225.228.99, I have much patience, but there are kinds of behaviour which I don't like in the least. It was your claim that in chapter "Performing style" there were "misguiding generalizations, poorly chosen sources and even plain factual errors all over the place". In addition to this you recently wrote that another chapter "was full of nonsense". It is also obvious that you want to pose yourself as if you were the one who as single person could decide at last how things were to be rewritten "properly". With an attitude as bold as this a person must have a bit more to offer than that what until now can be recognized in case of you. Regarding chapter "Performing style" I yesterday demonstrated that your claims, as offending as they had actually been put, were wrong. I could proceed, showing in details that everything you took away from the article had been correct while everything you put in was either misleading or wrong. Instead of doing this, I'd like to remind you that you are not at home but at Wikipedia at this place. There are some rules and policies which are obligatory for you. As far as it is your opinion that the work as done by others was "full of nonsense", you may think so. In this case please use this talk page and try to give better arguments than until now. For the moment I'll revert your edits, since the article has become not better, but worse. Much could be said to your previous posting again, for example that in spring 1840 Liszt and Clara Wieck could not possibly have "quarrelled for decades" (By this time they were friends.), and that the biographical sketch by Duverger (which you didn't read) was in fact authorized and distributed by Liszt. However, as long as you won't be able to change your attitude, reasonable arguments would be wasting my energy and obviously in vain.85.22.26.132 (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Up to this point you have not demonstrated that even a single one of my claims were wrong. All you have done is to show your ability to misquote reviews, take statements out of context and use biased sources. I commented on I believe every one of the points you made and my reasons for editing or removing them, and I can certainly point out your errors in the repertoire section as well if you wish. Furthermore, your ability to misquote people is apparently not limited merely to the Liszt litterature - I never wrote Clara and Liszt had "argued for decades" about Schumann's music by 1840, I wrote they KEPT ON quarreling for decades. And by March 1840 they were anything but friends. Liszt had taken sides against her father in the court you mentioned, and she wrote to Robert "This has cost me bitter tears and it is not right of you at all". To the best of my knowledge, she never said a nice word again about Liszt. Regarding Duverger, I have kept it as a reference in my edit of the text at wikipedia - all I did was to remove it as an example that Liszt was regarded as a charlatan during his virtuoso years, a claim I think you'll have a job to prove.


 * The ball is in your court now. It is time YOU point out the errors in MY text if you are going to revert them. Anyone is allowed to alter or expand it in the meantime (I am going to myself, it is not finished) providing the changes are backed up by modern research, but I will not allow your rubbish back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.228.99 (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please skip your personal attacks. If you are "angry, since you got the feeling to have lost a battle, don't post anything! Coming to your quotation from Clara Wieck's letter, it is well known in the Schumann literature and is correlated with the affaire at the civil court at Dresden. As such it has nothing to do with hostile feelings against Liszt. The fact that Liszt, Clara Wieck and Schumann were friends by that time is quite well known and can be confirmed with quotations from their letters. If you want more details in this respect you'll get them the other day.


 * Concerning your former claims, a person who absolutely never changes the tempo and who for this reason is compared with a metronome actually plays "like a living metronome". Whether this is "a terribly hard thing to say on any pianist" is merely a matter of taste. The long history of piano playing includes many different styles, and playing "like a living metronome" is one of them. Examples from the 20th century are early recordings of Friedrich Gulda who in that period of his career occasionally played like this. There were persons who liked it while there were others who preferred different styles. It is the same with Liszt, who during the 1820 certainly didn't take care of the musical taste of a person who 180 years later would be sitting at Wikipedia. and writing an article about him.


 * "As to Mme Boissier", I'd suggest imagining a piano teacher of our days who wants to take the poor information in her diary (additional parts with rather critical remarks about Liszt were published elsewhere) as "gold mine" for his own lessons. He would tell his students: "You must play with more expression since 176 years ago the famous Auguste Boissier had liked this." It would be ridiculous. The ladies Boissier returned to Geneva at end of March 1832, by the way. Thus Madame Boissier never had had a chance of watching Liszt's eccentric habits in the Parisian concerts he gave afterwards. His performing style during this period was totally different from that of the 1820s. There were further changes in later times (In a review of his "duel" with Thalberg on March 30, 1837, Liszt was described as noisily tappig the meter with his left foot.), and even Liszt's performing style of spring 1838, when Clara Wieck heard him in Vienna, was different from that of spring 1840, when she heard him in Leipzig. After his bankrupt in Great Britain in winter 1840-41 and the failure of his stay at London in May-June 1841 there was another change. Thus his playing style at concerts of the beginning of December 1841, when Schumann heard him in Weimar and Leipzig again, was different from that of spring 1840.


 * Your quotation from Saffle's Liszt in Germany, p.209, was nothing new at this place. (see n.4 in the present article's introduction) Unfortunately you did not mention Saffle's n.11, according to which there were contrary views as well. While Saffle tries to talk them away as they "seem to have been exceptions to a generally accepted rule", large amounts of those "exceptions" can be found. (A telling example is Saffle's n.193 on p.149 of his book.) According to Saffle's p.211f, Liszt's concerts were social events rather than musical ones. Due to Liszt's occasional lapses in performances of German masterpieces he was as main part juged from his playing his own fantasies and transcriptions. These pieces, however, according to Saffle, were usually evaluated primarily not as "musical works" but in terms of their spectacular technique. Thus Liszt was regarded as an overimaginative or even vulgar technician and not much more. In other words, he was regarded as a virtuoso, lacking inspiration.


 * As general remark: An encyclopedia is no part of a missionary station of an "Eternal Church of the Holy Franz". In other words, it is the task to adequately describe him without hiding such aspects of his personality which you don't like.85.22.126.155 (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is not much to add to this apart from what has already been said. Your last remark is incidentally precisely the reason I started this topic. It is for instance interesting to note that Alan Walker's biography on Liszt, generally considered the finest to have been published, doesn't agree with your view at all either - nor do I recall having ever seen any encyclopedia portray Liszt's virtuoso years the way you did. And yet you feel wikipedia should? Small wonder the backing-up of your claims have been very weak to say the least, and having seen examples of how you choose sources and "interpret" what is written I frankly don't know whether to laugh or cry. For the time being I will spend precisely the amount of energy on your arguments that they deserve - I will go and prepare lunch. 81.225.228.99 (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is certainly no reasonable debating style.85.22.2.20 (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * However, it is not simply unreasonable, but impossible to debate with you, good sir from Germany, since you utterly refuse to concede that a single one of your conclusions might be incorrect, and rather than debating us on issues, you resort to ludicrous accusations that we are caught in a "quasi-religious fervor" (as you once accused me) and now that we are trying to build an "Eternal Church of the Holy Franz" by "hiding such aspects of his personality which (we) don't like." Except the simple fact of the matter is that none of us are trying to "hide" anything, and if we object to one or another of your absurd dissertations it is simply because it is utterly unsupportable, plainly unscientifically-determined, illogical, politically-motivated, blatantly self-contradictory, assuming of poor faith, or with pretensions to clairvoyancy. Do you not realize that you, an unknown and anonymous amateur identified only with a series of IP addresses, are the sole and lone proponent of many if not all of your "theories"? If I may, good sir, it appears to be you that is caught up in a quasi-mystical fervor better suiting a cult leader, with approximately the tolerance for opposing viewpoints as one would expect to find in Torquemada, and the self-righteous paranoia about enemies attempting to "hide" your revelations and "cover up the truth" as is commonly found in conspiracy theorists and UFO-watchers. You will undoubtedly accuse me now of "personal attacks," and you may be right, but frankly I have long since stopped caring. You have no moral high ground here and even less scholarly high ground, and so I will say quite plainly that your theories are nonsense, you could rightly be described as an intellectual charlatan or even a simple quack, and most of all, you are rude and disruptive and have nearly driven me away from Wikipedia for good. And now, given that I have already prepared and eaten my lunch today, I will instead go make myself a nice cup of tea. K. Lásztocska talk 20:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)