| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Blind Joni" wrote in message ... Try questioning or trying to quantify Doppler mixing. I was astonished to find how politicized a technical matter could be. :-) I watched that one from the sidelines..didn't have time to keep up.  I gave up reading that one the first time a new header came out dissing someone... I still maintain, "Doppler comes and Doppler goes... so be it." DM |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Try questioning or trying to quantify Doppler mixing. I was
astonished to find how politicized a technical matter could be. :-) I watched that one from the sidelines..didn't have time to keep up. John A. Chiara SOS Recording Studio Live Sound Inc. Albany, NY www.sosrecording.net 518-449-1637 |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Blind Joni" wrote in message ... But there are other people's opinions to consider, and some people seem really taken aback not so much by OT posts, but political OT posts. OTOH, I agree with you in that these things are incredibly important for people to discuss, and I feel that there are facts which need to be brought out, about current events and hsitorical events, that are best reiterated as often as possible in every possible media. It's curious how the OT political threads rile so many to anger and name calling but the real concerns of audio seem to have so much less effect. Well, I don't want to say something that sounds like a hallmark card, but politics can be divisive, where art can bring people together. Even if you are arguing about Audio, you know at some point that you're arguing with one of the few others who cares at all. jb |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blind Joni wrote: It's curious how the OT political threads rile so many to anger and name calling but the real concerns of audio seem to have so much less effect. Try questioning or trying to quantify Doppler mixing. I was astonished to find how politicized a technical matter could be. :-) Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
I know. I just get so frustrated and like most people in life, they take it out on the ones they love. So there you have it. There must be a way for an intelligent guy like yourself to find a way to stop this behavior. If these events really are affecting you so personally there may be something else going on. John A. Chiara SOS Recording Studio Live Sound Inc. Albany, NY www.sosrecording.net 518-449-1637 |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
But there are other people's opinions to consider, and some people seem
really taken aback not so much by OT posts, but political OT posts. OTOH, I agree with you in that these things are incredibly important for people to discuss, and I feel that there are facts which need to be brought out, about current events and hsitorical events, that are best reiterated as often as possible in every possible media. It's curious how the OT political threads rile so many to anger and name calling but the real concerns of audio seem to have so much less effect. John A. Chiara SOS Recording Studio Live Sound Inc. Albany, NY www.sosrecording.net 518-449-1637 |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
I let it pass for three days, then when my server showed there were
118 messages, I read the first 13 and the name-calling had already begun. I'm sure there were interesting things to be said around the r.a.p. water cooler, but this one is already dead in my reader. No one says that anyone *has* to read every thread... get over it people - my mommy taught me how to change the channel when I was still catching it in my zipper. I haven't forgotten how that applies to everything in life. -- David Morgan (MAMS) http://www.m-a-m-s.com http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
George wrote: GW BUSH is a janus faced scumbag What's a janus faced scumbag? Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
George wrote:
GW BUSH is a janus faced scumbag What's a janus faced scumbag? Janus-faced means two-faced. I think that fits Kerry a lot more than Bush. Like him or not, Bush is a lot more consistent. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote: George wrote: GW BUSH is a janus faced scumbag What's a janus faced scumbag? Janus-faced means two-faced. I think that fits Kerry a lot more than Bush. Like him or not, Bush is a lot more consistent. Bush flip flops like a carp spawning |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote: George wrote: GW BUSH is a janus faced scumbag What's a janus faced scumbag? Janus-faced means two-faced. I think that fits Kerry a lot more than Bush. Like him or not, Bush is a lot more consistent. Bush flip flops like a carp spawning |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
George wrote:
GW BUSH is a janus faced scumbag What's a janus faced scumbag? Janus-faced means two-faced. I think that fits Kerry a lot more than Bush. Like him or not, Bush is a lot more consistent. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
George wrote: GW BUSH is a janus faced scumbag What's a janus faced scumbag? Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 04:27:37 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote: On 08 Sep 2004 03:30:39 GMT, ospam (WillStG) wrote: - John F. Kennedy Presidential Inaugural Address, 1961 ... and you Roger Norman, are no John F. Kennedy. But both are veterans, and you could have some ordinary respect. Not a chance... Will talks big, but you won't see him signing up for anything. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:31:02 -0700, playon wrote:
Not a chance... These are difficult times and we could all practice some tolerance. We Americans are at a crossroads. What will we become next? It's nut-cuttin' time kids. Will's right, and George's right, and Ty's right and....... So ,what's next? Does America survive this? Chris Hornbeck |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chris Hornbeck wrote: So ,what's next? Does America survive this? The 90's seem like such a wonderful dream now, don't they? b.t.w., you better off than you were 4 years ago? (yeah, right (..)) |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not a chance...
These are difficult times and we could all practice some tolerance. We Americans are at a crossroads. What will we become next? It's nut-cuttin' time kids. Will's right, and George's right, and Ty's right and....... So ,what's next? Does America survive this? Oh yeah, it's a bump in the road. Whomever is elected will still have to make the tough decisions. We will still go to war when our way of life is threatened or when we are attacked by terrorists. We will still use military force when the diplomacy and sanctions don't work. Our economy will still ebb and flow despite both liberal and conservatives efforts to control it. We'll still be bitching about the cost of health care in 20 years, and we'll still call whomever the current president on the carpet for everything we don't like. It's politics, and it's been happening since the creation or republics and democracy. Buch and Kerry will be gone... it'll be two new guys. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chris Hornbeck wrote: So ,what's next? Does America survive this? The 90's seem like such a wonderful dream now, don't they? b.t.w., you better off than you were 4 years ago? (yeah, right (..)) |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not a chance...
These are difficult times and we could all practice some tolerance. We Americans are at a crossroads. What will we become next? It's nut-cuttin' time kids. Will's right, and George's right, and Ty's right and....... So ,what's next? Does America survive this? Oh yeah, it's a bump in the road. Whomever is elected will still have to make the tough decisions. We will still go to war when our way of life is threatened or when we are attacked by terrorists. We will still use military force when the diplomacy and sanctions don't work. Our economy will still ebb and flow despite both liberal and conservatives efforts to control it. We'll still be bitching about the cost of health care in 20 years, and we'll still call whomever the current president on the carpet for everything we don't like. It's politics, and it's been happening since the creation or republics and democracy. Buch and Kerry will be gone... it'll be two new guys. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:31:02 -0700, playon wrote:
Not a chance... These are difficult times and we could all practice some tolerance. We Americans are at a crossroads. What will we become next? It's nut-cuttin' time kids. Will's right, and George's right, and Ty's right and....... So ,what's next? Does America survive this? Chris Hornbeck |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
- John F. Kennedy
Presidential Inaugural Address, 1961 ... and you Roger Norman, are no John F. Kennedy. But both are veterans, and you could have some ordinary respect. Like the respect the left has for the 250 swift boat veterans? |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote: - John F. Kennedy Presidential Inaugural Address, 1961 ... and you Roger Norman, are no John F. Kennedy. But both are veterans, and you could have some ordinary respect. Like the respect the left has for the 250 swift boat veterans? the ones that stood up for Kerry or the ones on the RNC payroll? |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
the ones that stood up for Kerry or the ones on the RNC payroll?
Name one that is on the RNC payroll. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote: - John F. Kennedy Presidential Inaugural Address, 1961 ... and you Roger Norman, are no John F. Kennedy. But both are veterans, and you could have some ordinary respect. Like the respect the left has for the 250 swift boat veterans? the ones that stood up for Kerry or the ones on the RNC payroll? |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 04:27:37 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote: On 08 Sep 2004 03:30:39 GMT, ospam (WillStG) wrote: - John F. Kennedy Presidential Inaugural Address, 1961 ... and you Roger Norman, are no John F. Kennedy. But both are veterans, and you could have some ordinary respect. Not a chance... Will talks big, but you won't see him signing up for anything. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
- John F. Kennedy
Presidential Inaugural Address, 1961 ... and you Roger Norman, are no John F. Kennedy. But both are veterans, and you could have some ordinary respect. Like the respect the left has for the 250 swift boat veterans? |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
WillStG wrote: Once upon a time, a Democrat said - Will, he was simply puting Nikita Kruschev on notice. Does not-so-subtle sublety totally escape you? I was a senior in high school then and I understood what he was saying and to whom. Nikita called his bluff and then he called Nikita's. Scary **** that was. It's even scarier out now but no one seems to be nearly as scared. Odd, that. _No-one_ is bluffing this time round. "Nikita's Bluff" sounds like it should be the name of a band or at least a song. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 22:44:09 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote: Nikita called his bluff and then he called Nikita's. Scary **** that was. It's even scarier out now but no one seems to be nearly as scared. Odd, that. _No-one_ is bluffing this time round. Nobody ever questioned whether the Russkies could *actually* launch their liquid fueled rockets. Well, at least nobody who knew. Well, at least noboby who could talk about it. Or at least anybody who *would* talk about it. Thank God it wasn't political. Chris Hornbeck |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chris Hornbeck wrote: Nobody ever questioned whether the Russkies could *actually* launch their liquid fueled rockets. Well, at least nobody who knew. Well, at least noboby who could talk about it. Or at least anybody who *would* talk about it. Thank God it wasn't political. Sting had it right back in the 80's. True now more than ever. And they do love their children too. The cold war had players that were relatively rational. Kept us from killing each other. With OR without Reagan. (..) We are both now dealing with crazy *******s that would just as soon everyone was dead. Much more serious than the cold war i.m.o. Problem is, Bush ain't helping. Unfortunately, just the opposite. http://protest.bmgbiz.net/FailedOBL.jpg |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nobody ever questioned whether the Russkies could *actually*
launch their liquid fueled rockets. Well, at least nobody who knew. Well, at least noboby who could talk about it. Or at least anybody who *would* talk about it. Thank God it wasn't political. Good point Chris. I think that anybody would have done what Kennedy did given the same situation. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chris Hornbeck wrote: Nobody ever questioned whether the Russkies could *actually* launch their liquid fueled rockets. Well, at least nobody who knew. Well, at least noboby who could talk about it. Or at least anybody who *would* talk about it. Thank God it wasn't political. Sting had it right back in the 80's. True now more than ever. And they do love their children too. The cold war had players that were relatively rational. Kept us from killing each other. With OR without Reagan. (..) We are both now dealing with crazy *******s that would just as soon everyone was dead. Much more serious than the cold war i.m.o. Problem is, Bush ain't helping. Unfortunately, just the opposite. http://protest.bmgbiz.net/FailedOBL.jpg |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nobody ever questioned whether the Russkies could *actually*
launch their liquid fueled rockets. Well, at least nobody who knew. Well, at least noboby who could talk about it. Or at least anybody who *would* talk about it. Thank God it wasn't political. Good point Chris. I think that anybody would have done what Kennedy did given the same situation. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will, he was simply puting Nikita Kruschev on notice. Does
not-so-subtle sublety totally escape you? I was a senior in high school then and I understood what he was saying and to whom. Thank god it wasn't a self professed "peace" president. Nikita called his bluff and then he called Nikita's. Scary **** that was. It's even scarier out now but no one seems to be nearly as scared. Odd, that. _No-one_ is bluffing this time round. You're right, it is scarier. But the stakes aren't as high now as they were in 1962. That was a real crisis, way bigger in scope than 9/11. The fear however is exactly the same. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Romeo Rondeau wrote: You're right, it is scarier. But the stakes aren't as high now as they were in 1962. You can't be serious. If you are then I begin to understand where you come from. That was a real crisis, way bigger in scope than 9/11. What I'm talking about is also _way_ bigger in scope than 9/11. 9/11 wasn't about scope, it was about willingness. The fear however is exactly the same. I was there then and I am here now. There is absolutely no comparison between the fear evidenced by people then and now. People are generally oblivious to the real stakes in this game and the near certainty of a raise. This is a no-limit game and it is certainly not zero-sum. We're trying to deliver body blows to an opponent who has a gun to our head. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
You're right, it is scarier. But the stakes aren't as high now as they
were in 1962. You can't be serious. If you are then I begin to understand where you come from. Higher stakes than total nuclear annihilation? That was a real crisis, way bigger in scope than 9/11. What I'm talking about is also _way_ bigger in scope than 9/11. 9/11 wasn't about scope, it was about willingness. The fear however is exactly the same. I was there then and I am here now. There is absolutely no comparison between the fear evidenced by people then and now. People are generally oblivious to the real stakes in this game and the near certainty of a raise. This is a no-limit game and it is certainly not zero-sum. We're trying to deliver body blows to an opponent who has a gun to our head. Yes, but the gun that the Soviets had to our head was way bigger. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Romeo Rondeau wrote: You're right, it is scarier. But the stakes aren't as high now as they were in 1962. You can't be serious. If you are then I begin to understand where you come from. That was a real crisis, way bigger in scope than 9/11. What I'm talking about is also _way_ bigger in scope than 9/11. 9/11 wasn't about scope, it was about willingness. The fear however is exactly the same. I was there then and I am here now. There is absolutely no comparison between the fear evidenced by people then and now. People are generally oblivious to the real stakes in this game and the near certainty of a raise. This is a no-limit game and it is certainly not zero-sum. We're trying to deliver body blows to an opponent who has a gun to our head. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Richman's ethical lapses | Audio Opinions | |||
Hybrid Mode
