"dave weil" wrote in message
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:48:20 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:52:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 08:33:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"George M. Middius" wrote in message
Scott Elliott Birch said:
(Scott Elliott Birch) wrote in message
om...
Is anybody running Reason 2.0 on a 2GHz (or thereabouts)
Celeron laptop? Is it feasible? I'm wondering whether to buy
a Celeron lappie or something faster. Also what audio I/O
would you recommend, whether it be just to support Reason or
any sequencer or audio software package I may upgrade to in
the future?
Is there anybody out there who will answer my question? I'm not
interested in the bizarre replies I got that constitute the
present thread.
I'm wondering why you would pose such a question on *audio*
newsgroups. Even a well-behaved group would be unlikely to
produce the answer. You should look for a more pertinent group.
Boy, that's a weird response. I guess it shows that Middius is
generally screwed in the head, not just screwed in the head about
me.
Hmmmm, since he said the same thing that you did, in different
words, I guess that makes *you* screwed in the head as well.
Except you are either lying or unbelievably stupid, Weil.
I pointed him in the direction of a well-known audio-related
newsgroup, alt.music.4-track.
Nice deceptive editing. Why did you feel the need to delete the
pertinent quote?
A desire for brevity.
Here, let me put it back in:
Be my guest, as the pertient quotes demolish your claims, Weil.
Arny Krueger wrote:
Regrettably, you're asking a perfectly reasonable question on the
wrong Usenet group. This group (when it's not a playground for
perverts which is much of the time) is more about reproduction of
music, not production of music.
Reason is a music synthesis program, so let me suggest
that you ask your question on alt.music.4-track.
Now, that's basically the same thing that Mr. Middius said, only he
didn't give a possible place to reask the question.
Weil, are you really so stupid that you can't see the difference
between:
The Middius blow-off:
" I'm wondering why you would pose such a question on *audio*
newsgroups. Even a well-behaved group would be unlikely to
produce the answer. You should look for a more pertinent group."
This is a completely bogus answer composed of 3 completely bogus
sentences:
Bogus Middius sentence number one:
"I'm wondering why you would pose such a question on *audio*
newsgroups."
It's an audio question that as I show below, can be answered on an
audio-related newsgroup, specifically alt.music.4-track .
Bogus Middius sentence number two:
"Even a well-behaved group would be unlikely to produce the answer."
In fact alt.music.4-track is a reasonably well-behaved group and
can, based on my years of experience there be expected to produce an
answer.
Bogus Middius sentence number three:
"You should look for a more pertinent group."
This sentence directly contradicts sentence number three which
claims that no audio-related group could reasonably be expected to
produce an answer. Further, it provides neither insight into how
such a group might be found, nor the name of an actual group where
the desired assistance might be found.
Krueger's sympathetic and clear assistance:
"Regrettably, you're asking a perfectly reasonable question on the
wrong Usenet group. This group (when it's not a playground for
perverts which is much of the time) is more about reproduction of
music, not production of music. Reason is a music synthesis
program, so let me suggest
that you ask your question on alt.music.4-track."
I correctly point out that his problem is not that his question
can't be answered on an audio group, but rather that he's
regrettably picked a group that is dominated by perverts such as
Weil and Middius. Furthermore, I point out why rec.audio.opinion
would be a bad choice even if the perverts such as Weil and Middius
weren't trashing the place day in, and day out. Finally, I point him
exactly at a far more orderly group that frequently has discussions
in his area of interest, namely alt.music.4-track.
So here's the question Weil. Are you really so blind as to think
that the Middius answer was as appropriate or helpful as mine? Or,
are you just trolling for attention, again.
So, do you think that *your* 'answer" was as appropriate or as helpful
as *mine*, considering that I actually addressed the question
directly?
Your so-called answer is irrelevant at this time, Weil. The question was
answered this morning. I wouldn't be surprised if the guy who asked it is so
frustrated with RAO that he's unlikely to ever make the mistake of coming
here again. If he reads the Middius POS reply, he'll be doubly frustrated.
Take your time...
Wasting much more time with this is not indicated. The subject was proabably
closed in the original author's mind someplace around 6 am EDT this morning.
I'll bet you're sorry that you originally invoked my name in this
thread. Maybe you've learned something...
I'm happy to stand on my answer given that it was timely and predated any
other answers.
Given that you took the better part of a day to write just one post, with an
obvious axe to grind proves only how desperate for attention you are, Weil.
I've given you more than enough attention to keep your wounded little ego
stoked for weeks Weil. So, this will be my last post to this thread unless
something really interesting comes up.