"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
: Or someone who records the choir at his church and tells his buddies
: he's a "professional recording engineer". ;-)
:
: As of feb. 2006, I'll be working for an audio company.
: Does that change my "authority" on RAO or RATubes?

o exalted one, may i humbly put before you
all my designs and spices ?
for ratification, you will note

: -)
: In contrast, there are people all over Detroit who have little garages of no
: note or notice, who still build cars from bolts, nuts, raw sheet metal, mill
: the metal parts, etc. Their cars may lack some refinements as compared to a
: new Jeep Grand Cheokee or Dodge Magnum, but they can honestly take credit
: for the finished product.
:
:
: Likewise for people like Jute, Turner and, yes, even deWaal.
: They make (tube) amps, speakers, DACs, and turntables from various
: "nuts and bolts" that are lying around in their junk boxes.
: Some even go so far as to make their own chassis' and output
: transformers.
: Their products may lack the refinements of a new Ongaku or ARC, but
: they can honestly take credit for the finished product.


but surely, mr. Dwaal, you know that slef making gear creates a bias
that increases perceived fidelity - that's not fair play, eh ?

Rudyoz amigo
: --
:
: "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
: - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Ruud Broens" said:

: As of feb. 2006, I'll be working for an audio company.
: Does that change my "authority" on RAO or RATubes?

o exalted one, may i humbly put before you
all my designs and spices ?
for ratification, you will note


Hmmm.....you use those obsolete devices otherwise known as "vacuum
tubes" , right, sonny?
Sorry, can't do. This is 2005, you know?

You'll have to ask Prof. Turner about that, I do sensible audio only
;-)


: Likewise for people like Jute, Turner and, yes, even deWaal.
: They make (tube) amps, speakers, DACs, and turntables from various
: "nuts and bolts" that are lying around in their junk boxes.
: Some even go so far as to make their own chassis' and output
: transformers.
: Their products may lack the refinements of a new Ongaku or ARC, but
: they can honestly take credit for the finished product.


but surely, mr. Dwaal, you know that slef making gear creates a bias
that increases perceived fidelity - that's not fair play, eh ?



Fair play? Where in the RAO charter does it say that?


Rudyoz amigo


Cheerz mate, let 2006 be a better year than this was.

Witte kerst en een waanzinnig nieuwjaar vanuit hier, mede namens de
wederhelft!


Oh, en zorg dat je er dit jaar nu wel bent he!
http://home.versatel.nl/ddiy_2005/ zie aankondiging 2006.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" said:
:
: : As of feb. 2006, I'll be working for an audio company.
: : Does that change my "authority" on RAO or RATubes?
:
: o exalted one, may i humbly put before you
: all my designs and spices ?
: for ratification, you will note
:
:
: Hmmm.....you use those obsolete devices otherwise known as "vacuum
: tubes" , right, sonny?
: Sorry, can't do. This is 2005, you know?
:
: You'll have to ask Prof. Turner about that, I do sensible audio only
: ;-)

big bucks already spoilt the adventurer, eh ?
to baldly go where no curl has gone b4, hein ;-)
:
: : Likewise for people like Jute, Turner and, yes, even deWaal.
: : They make (tube) amps, speakers, DACs, and turntables from various
: : "nuts and bolts" that are lying around in their junk boxes.
: : Some even go so far as to make their own chassis' and output
: : transformers.
: : Their products may lack the refinements of a new Ongaku or ARC, but
: : they can honestly take credit for the finished product.
:
:
: *but surely, mr. Dwaal, you know that slef making gear creates a bias
: that increases perceived fidelity - that's not fair play, eh ?
:
:
:
: Fair play? Where in the RAO charter does it say that?
true. witholding evidence, then ;-)
:
: Rudyoz amigo
:
:
: Cheerz mate, let 2006 be a better year than this was.
:
: Witte kerst en een waanzinnig nieuwjaar vanuit hier, mede namens de
: wederhelft!
:
gambler. 5% change of _that_ the supercomps say ..
insgelijks en zo :-)

: Oh, en zorg dat je er dit jaar nu wel bent he!
: http://home.versatel.nl/ddiy_2005/ zie aankondiging 2006.
:
yes, my masteh ;-)
: --
:
: "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."

* no kiddin'
: - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Keerist...

Most anyone with a decent education is able to parse a sentence. Few
take the trouble. The problem is that even if the shovel is
gold-plated, the information being cast about may not be as good as the
shovel.

Frequent publication:

Not necessarily so. Those who respect the English (any, comes to it)
language will try to say what they mean and mean what they say.
Shakespeare put it most aptly when he wrote: Brevity is the soul of
wit. Dickens was paid by the word, so in his case, he had a special
interest in fulsome writing over the elegant and economical conveyance
of information. The presumption (at least on my part) is that this
venue should value information over style, and judge the information
and its clarity rather than the surrounding fluff and flummery.

All kidding aside, elegant prose with the sole and only purpose being
character assasination, even if perceived by the writer as true and
just, is so sad. I know absolutely nothing about Andre Jute except what
he has exposed to us here, and then only recently, and a litte from his
website. But, those things that are obvious are that he has a very
large and very fragile ego, and that he is the living embodyment of the
Peter Pan syndrome. I suspect that if one tip-toes around his ego, and
if one makes due provision for his self-image (not hardly the same
thing), he could be a very nice fellow....

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's recordings
because there are none. All of the recordings that Iain
has taken credit for had most of the work done on them
by others. He has no legal rights to them at all.
Whatever small contribution he did make to them was
performed using equipment, artists, and venues that were
obtained by others and at the expense of others.

Why do you say stuff like this? Google shows you wrong in
seconds, and none of your hair-splitting about legal
rights or collaborative work or who hired the equipment
changes that.

Look Stephen, in you usual rush to be right as opposed to being correct you
pulled your usual debating trade schtick.

You dismissed my main point as "hair splitting", and eliminated a thorough
discussion of exactly what I meant.

No, I dismissed your main point based on a quick Google. My reference to
your hair-splitting was for your secondary "points".

As for the main point, who engineered my Dowland recordings?

In my book Stephen that shows you once again to be a deceptive troll.

Without a leg to stand on, you go right to the ad hominem.

If you want to be responsive to the issues I raised Stephen, then do so.
Otherwise you can make an even bigger fool of yourself on your own.

Main point: if Mr. Churches is the same person who engineered the
L'Oiseau Lyre Dowland recordings, I've heard his work.

Your secondary points:

Credit taken from others who did "most of the work"? If you don't
understand recordings are often collaborative efforts, then you probably
don't have much experience with professional recordings.

No legal rights? Ever hear of "work for hire"?

Equipment, artists and venues? This means he has worked for big
important recording companies as part of a production team. It's also
common for freelancers to work for the artist and record in an
independent studio using available gear.

If repeating this common knowledge makes me seem foolish, so be it.

Stephen

Vannabe Vicked Wieckie sent a long miaow. She stormed into RAT a
fortnight ago and with prissy lips tried to tell me how I should
behave. She still hasn't discovered that no one with a fragile ego
survives long on the net. She is another little Kroogeroid control
freak who thinks that by denigrating her betters she will seem larger
than she is. Her fake humility, were it real, would be fully justified
by vast tundra empty of achievement and an arid soul full of
schadenfreude (which I already demonstrated, of course; google it). Who
wants to bet on how long before Vicked Wieckie flounces out in a huff?
Pick a week, let me know by e-mail how much you want to bet and I'll
give you odds.

Andre Jute

PS Wieckie-baby, prove that I ever in more than ten years on RAT struck
anyone who didn't strike me first, and I'll forego calling you a
slack-arse envious hypcrite who didn't do his homework and discover
that *everyone* I **** on struck me first. Including you.

pfjw aka Vannabe Vicked Wieckie, @aol.com miaows:
Keerist...

Most anyone with a decent education is able to parse a sentence. Few
take the trouble. The problem is that even if the shovel is
gold-plated, the information being cast about may not be as good as the
shovel.

Frequent publication:

Not necessarily so. Those who respect the English (any, comes to it)
language will try to say what they mean and mean what they say.
Shakespeare put it most aptly when he wrote: Brevity is the soul of
wit. Dickens was paid by the word, so in his case, he had a special
interest in fulsome writing over the elegant and economical conveyance
of information. The presumption (at least on my part) is that this
venue should value information over style, and judge the information
and its clarity rather than the surrounding fluff and flummery.

All kidding aside, elegant prose with the sole and only purpose being
character assasination, even if perceived by the writer as true and
just, is so sad. I know absolutely nothing about Andre Jute except what
he has exposed to us here, and then only recently, and a litte from his
website. But, those things that are obvious are that he has a very
large and very fragile ego, and that he is the living embodyment of the
Peter Pan syndrome. I suspect that if one tip-toes around his ego, and
if one makes due provision for his self-image (not hardly the same
thing), he could be a very nice fellow....

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's recordings
because there are none. All of the recordings that Iain
has taken credit for had most of the work done on them
by others. He has no legal rights to them at all.
Whatever small contribution he did make to them was
performed using equipment, artists, and venues that
were obtained by others and at the expense of others.

Why do you say stuff like this? Google shows you wrong
in seconds, and none of your hair-splitting about legal
rights or collaborative work or who hired the equipment
changes that.

Look Stephen, in you usual rush to be right as opposed
to being correct you pulled your usual debating trade
schtick.

You dismissed my main point as "hair splitting", and
eliminated a thorough discussion of exactly what I meant.

No, I dismissed your main point based on a quick Google.

OK, so you used an invalid procedure that shed no light on my specific
claims.

My reference to your hair-splitting was for your
secondary "points".

More hair-splitting.

As for the main point, who engineered my Dowland
recordings?

Who cares? This is not about who got the credit for a minor step in
production.

In my book Stephen that shows you once again to be a
deceptive troll.

Without a leg to stand on, you go right to the ad hominem.

No, I'm simply being accurate.

If you want to be responsive to the issues I raised
Stephen, then do so. Otherwise you can make an even
bigger fool of yourself on your own.

Main point: if Mr. Churches is the same person who
engineered the L'Oiseau Lyre Dowland recordings, I've
heard his work.

The point is that Churches' work is a small portion of the larger picture
called producing a recording.

Your secondary points:

Credit taken from others who did "most of the work"? If
you don't understand recordings are often collaborative
efforts, then you probably don't have much experience
with professional recordings.

If you have to belabor this point Stephen, then its clear you have some
severe perceptual challenges. I covered all that, and in detail. Oh, I get
it Stephen, it was all over your head and you deleted it because you
couldn't see it's relevance.

No legal rights? Ever hear of "work for hire"?

Well Stephen, you're obviously even more perceptually challenged than I
thought if you have to raise that question. BTW, since you seem to need it
spelled our, the answer is yes.

Equipment, artists and venues? This means he has worked
for big important recording companies as part of a
production team.

Which means that the works he takes credit for are in fact the work of a
team.

It's also common for freelancers to work
for the artist and record in an independent studio using
available gear.

So what?

If repeating this common knowledge makes me seem foolish,
so be it.

You still don't get the difference, do you Stephen?

Sad.

A sound recording engineer is a man who for his daily bread or an
habitual part of his daily bread makes sound recordings. He is a
professional. It doesn't matter whether he works on a team or alone.
Ownership of copyright is irrelevant. Ownership of machinery is
irrelevant.

Someone who records his church choir for free and then claims the money
they didn't pay a professional, for a job they probably didn't want
done in the first instance (1), makes him a professional is a
professional fool; this person is no more than a hobbyist. Arny Krueger
fits this category.

The person who puts together the artists and venue and pays the
salaries is the producer. He usually doesn't own anything either, being
a salaried employee or freelance for hire to the distributor, the
record company. He too is a professional, not to be confused with a
hobbyist going along to his pre-existing church choir and recording
them.

These are pretty standard definitions in great many industries.

Iain Churches, who has a veriable track record as a professional sound
recordist, fits the first category. He is a professional in sound
recording.

Arny Krueger fits this the second category of a hobbyist. It is
significant that Krueger tries to inflate his standing by denigrating a
professional. A real professional would never in a million do anything
that silly.

HTH.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

(1) ... for a job they probably didn't want done in the first instance!
We all know amateur idiots who insist on photographing or recording
events whether the victims want it or not. To this class of
insensitive, bullying hobbyist a church choir, full of Christians too
charitable to put him back in his box must seem a godsent.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
a sound recording engineer.

A job he does for his church, not an occupation.

Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
church free of charge.

Firstly, even by Mr.Kruger's own twisted logic, his statement is
nonsense.

AFAIK, its a fabrication. I sure can't find anything that looks like it.

Secondly. Have you heard any of Arny's recordings???
Professional is not a word that comes to mind.

In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's recordings because there are
none. All of the recordings that Iain has taken credit for had most of the
work done on them by others. He has no legal rights to them at all. Whatever
small contribution he did make to them was performed using equipment,
artists, and venues that were obtained by others and at the expense of
others.

It's my understanding that in contrast, John Atkinson has actually made some
recordings of note. He has personally lined up artists, venues, and
equipment. Atkinson, at least some of the time personally selected, obtained
and set up the equipment, loaded and unloaded recording media of his
personal choice, was the sole technician who personally placed, adjusted,
and started and stopped the equipment.

AFAIK Atkinson has edited at least some (I think all) of his recordings
himself using editing facilities that he personally selected and/or owned,
personally mastered some or all of the recordings, and on occasion delivered
the masters for reproduction by subcontractors that he personally selected
and made the arrangements for.

There's a good chance that Atkinson even owns the copyrights to some of his
recordings, which are thus truely his.

Note that while I've explained these differences to Iain before on several
occasions, he continues to act like they don't exist. In short, he's either
BSing, or he's seriously delusional.

Iain is like I guy who slaps fenders on Jeeps in the Chrysler plant about 6
miles from my house, and tells his friends that he makes cars from start to
finish.

In contrast, there are people all over Detroit who have little garages of no
note or notice, who still build cars from bolts, nuts, raw sheet metal, mill
the metal parts, etc. Their cars may lack some refinements as compared to a
new Jeep Grand Cheokee or Dodge Magnum, but they can honestly take credit
for the finished product.

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stewart Pinkerton, Postman of Spam, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:57:08 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Andre Jute" wrote in message
roups.com...
FLAME WARRIOR
Preliminary report of
AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH

Whoever Jute is, and regardless of his ethics, he ranks at the very top
of
literary skills on usenet. Sometimes I put a lot of work into a post,
but
Jute's efforts dwarf mine.

This futher arouses my curiousity about him. Regardless of his motives
or
ethics, which I will not judge here, the demonstrated skill implies a
level
of comfort and practice that can only be maintained by frequent
publication.

What does this guy actually do in real life?

He wrote some potboiler novels about twenty years ago, now he teaches
creative writing to college kids.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Nope, I don't teach creative writing, though it is true that my
textbooks in writing are prescribed texts in various such courses.
Others of my books are prescribed in other courses. A novel of mine was
once prescribed as a text in a course at an English university for
high-level civil servants, soldiers and policemen in the anti-terrorist
branches; it was taught by Brigadier Richard Clutterbuck.

I'm interested in where we can find your college-level textbooks,
Pinkerton.

Some of my books, including novels and technical texts, with reviews,
can be found at
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
The Times clearly didn't consult Pinkothicko before they wrote:
"Jute has clearly conducted a great deal of research into everything he
describes, investing the novel with an air of prophecy. His moral and
ecological concerns are important.." -- Times Literary Supplement

Andre Jute
Interdisciplinary. Bend over, Pinko.

Of course if they saw what you write here, they'd be leading the charge to
have you sent to Bedlam.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's recordings
because there are none. All of the recordings that Iain
has taken credit for had most of the work done on them
by others. He has no legal rights to them at all.
Whatever small contribution he did make to them was
performed using equipment, artists, and venues that
were obtained by others and at the expense of others.

Why do you say stuff like this? Google shows you wrong
in seconds, and none of your hair-splitting about legal
rights or collaborative work or who hired the equipment
changes that.

Look Stephen, in you usual rush to be right as opposed
to being correct you pulled your usual debating trade
schtick.

You dismissed my main point as "hair splitting", and
eliminated a thorough discussion of exactly what I meant.

No, I dismissed your main point based on a quick Google.

OK, so you used an invalid procedure that shed no light on my specific
claims.

Your point was that Iain has made no recordings. Well, Google says he
has engineered at least one major series of recordings.

My reference to your hair-splitting was for your
secondary "points".

More hair-splitting.

No, it's answering you exactly.

As for the main point, who engineered my Dowland
recordings?

Who cares? This is not about who got the credit for a minor step in
production.

An engineer can properly be said to have "made a recording."

In my book Stephen that shows you once again to be a
deceptive troll.

Without a leg to stand on, you go right to the ad hominem.

No, I'm simply being accurate.

Nope. I'm addressing your argument directly.

If you want to be responsive to the issues I raised
Stephen, then do so. Otherwise you can make an even
bigger fool of yourself on your own.

Main point: if Mr. Churches is the same person who
engineered the L'Oiseau Lyre Dowland recordings, I've
heard his work.

The point is that Churches' work is a small portion of the larger picture
called producing a recording.

Indispensable and not necessarily small. Why are you belittling
recording engineers all of a sudden?

Your secondary points:

Credit taken from others who did "most of the work"? If
you don't understand recordings are often collaborative
efforts, then you probably don't have much experience
with professional recordings.

If you have to belabor this point Stephen, then its clear you have some
severe perceptual challenges. I covered all that, and in detail. Oh, I get
it Stephen, it was all over your head and you deleted it because you
couldn't see it's relevance.

You say he doesn't "have" any recordings when he has in fact made
recordings.

And, no, your side issues are not relevant to the question of whether
Mr. Churches "has" any recordings.

No legal rights? Ever hear of "work for hire"?

Well Stephen, you're obviously even more perceptually challenged than I
thought if you have to raise that question. BTW, since you seem to need it
spelled our, the answer is yes.

So an engineer working on a recording generally wouldn't be expected to
own the rights to the product.

Equipment, artists and venues? This means he has worked
for big important recording companies as part of a
production team.

Which means that the works he takes credit for are in fact the work of a
team.

He is entitled to credit as part of a team. He is also entitled to
credit for work he has done on his own.

It's also common for freelancers to work
for the artist and record in an independent studio using
available gear.

So what?

So hiring gear isn't an important issue. However, an engineer would be
expected to own, hire or use whatever it takes to make the recording.

If repeating this common knowledge makes me seem foolish,
so be it.

You still don't get the difference, do you Stephen?

Sad.

I see you attacking someone in retaliation for saying something you
don't like. As you don't have a substantive point, you make up stuff, in
this case belittling recording engineers.

Recording engineers are not a small part of a recording team. For you to
suggest otherwise smacks of sour grapes.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's
recordings because there are none. All of the
recordings that Iain has taken credit for had most
of the work done on them by others. He has no legal
rights to them at all. Whatever small contribution
he did make to them was performed using equipment,
artists, and venues that were obtained by others and
at the expense of others.

Why do you say stuff like this? Google shows you wrong
in seconds, and none of your hair-splitting about
legal rights or collaborative work or who hired the
equipment changes that.

Look Stephen, in you usual rush to be right as opposed
to being correct you pulled your usual debating trade
schtick.

You dismissed my main point as "hair splitting", and
eliminated a thorough discussion of exactly what I
meant.

No, I dismissed your main point based on a quick Google.

OK, so you used an invalid procedure that shed no light
on my specific claims.

Your point was that Iain has made no recordings. Well,
Google says he has engineered at least one major series
of recordings.

My reference to your hair-splitting was for your
secondary "points".

More hair-splitting.

No, it's answering you exactly.

As for the main point, who engineered my Dowland
recordings?

Who cares? This is not about who got the credit for a
minor step in production.

An engineer can properly be said to have "made a
recording."

In my book Stephen that shows you once again to be a
deceptive troll.

Without a leg to stand on, you go right to the ad
hominem.

No, I'm simply being accurate.

Nope. I'm addressing your argument directly.

If you want to be responsive to the issues I raised
Stephen, then do so. Otherwise you can make an even
bigger fool of yourself on your own.

Main point: if Mr. Churches is the same person who
engineered the L'Oiseau Lyre Dowland recordings, I've
heard his work.

The point is that Churches' work is a small portion of
the larger picture called producing a recording.

Indispensable

Only in the sense that *someone* had to do it.

and not necessarily small.

not necessarily large.


Why are you
belittling recording engineers all of a sudden?

I'm not. Belittling means making their role smaller than it is. I'm simply
trying to point out that in a large organization, a recording engineer is
simply another replacable unit.

Your secondary points:

Credit taken from others who did "most of the work"? If
you don't understand recordings are often collaborative
efforts, then you probably don't have much experience
with professional recordings.

If you have to belabor this point Stephen, then its
clear you have some severe perceptual challenges. I
covered all that, and in detail. Oh, I get it Stephen,
it was all over your head and you deleted it because you
couldn't see it's relevance.

You say he doesn't "have" any recordings when he has in
fact made recordings.

Churches compares his role in the recordings he has engineers credits with
my role in my recordings. He says that they are comparable. He should knows
better. Therefore he lies.

And, no, your side issues are not relevant to the
question of whether Mr. Churches "has" any recordings.

If there are enough significant side issues, then they join together and
become the main issue.

No legal rights? Ever hear of "work for hire"?

Well Stephen, you're obviously even more perceptually
challenged than I thought if you have to raise that
question. BTW, since you seem to need it spelled our,
the answer is yes.

So an engineer working on a recording generally wouldn't
be expected to own the rights to the product.

Thanks Stephen for finally supporting one of the major points in my argument
that Church cannot reasonably compare his role in the recordings that he has
engineer's credits for to my role in the recordings that I've produced.

Equipment, artists and venues? This means he has worked
for big important recording companies as part of a
production team.

Which means that the works he takes credit for are in
fact the work of a team.

He is entitled to credit as part of a team.

However, he compares his work to a person who works solo.

He is also entitled to credit for work he has done on his own.

Does such work exist?

It's also common for freelancers to work
for the artist and record in an independent studio using
available gear.

So what?

So hiring gear isn't an important issue.

An engineer that works for a recording company can get engineers credit's
without doing even just that. Often all he has to do is look in a closet or
cupboard. An person who produces a recording on his own has far more than
that to do, in the gear selection and acquisition portion of the project.

However, an
engineer would be expected to own, hire or use whatever
it takes to make the recording.

There's a big difference between owning your own equipment and pulling
someone else's equipment out of a cupboard.

If repeating this common knowledge makes me seem
foolish, so be it.

You still don't get the difference, do you Stephen?

Sad.

I see you attacking someone in retaliation for saying
something you don't like.

Actually Stephen, I can't you see acting this poorly-informed without
trying.

As you don't have a substantive
point, you make up stuff, in this case belittling
recording engineers.

Not at all. This controversy with Churches is about him gratuitously
belittling me over a period of months. Now Stephen, you've taken his side in
his little vendetta against me. Not your first, probably not your last.

Recording engineers are not a small part of a recording team.

In terms of hands-on work, its possible for a recording engineer to get
credit for a project that he never personally touched in the physical sense.

For you to suggest otherwise smacks of sour grapes.

For Stephen to gratutitously jump into yet another a vendetta against me is
hardly surprising. Stephen is a person who loves to hate.

Andre,

Proving the negative is a logical fallacy, kiddo. The world is seldom
kind and owes no one anything, least of all appreciation or
recognition. And if I were to force myself to '**** back' at every
perceived slight real or imagined, there would not be enough time for
much of anything else, and I surely would be inviting attacks were they
not real in the first place. The brute fact of the matter is that
pretty much the entire world simply does not care.

There are only seven fallacies. So far, in two posts you have managed
three. I am sure with a wee bit of research, I could find all seven in
your ramblings. However, you are yourself a most excellent and enduring
demonstration of the Pathetic Fallacy... and lest you protest from
faint knowledge yet again, that has NOTHING to do with pathos.

One wonders if you would actually pass the Turing Test.

Your most prolific fallacy is the use of the "Bellman's Proof",
something that again will likely escape you without further research.
It is sorta-kinda a combination of two of the classical references,
being circular reasoning and false premises. Betcha Don would get this
one right away as well? Don? (Actually, I hope you are not spinning
your wheels reading this tripe.)

Now, keep in mind that fragile egos _always_ have something to prove.
Those that manage to channel the insecurity to productive ends quite
typically shine in the real world. Those who do not often subsume very
real achievements in meaningless unnecessary defenses and irrational
accusations. Were you so damned sure of your facts, you would have no
need for pointless rants and painfully silly dissertations on exactly
how many angels might dance on the head of a theoretical pin of unknown
dimensions... to an entirely uncaring audience. The saddest part of
all.

What's worse is that you and Phil spend a good deal of time answering
your own posts. Steve Dinius, a waste-of-air from another NG has that
habit, and he admits to being on very strong meds. What's your excuse?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


Any fool can see that the paragraph above is not a claim, but a
light-hearted rhetorical question intended to poke fun at people who put
on *professional* airs.


now, just WHO could that be?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


In contrast, there are people all over Detroit who have little garages of
no note or notice, who still build cars from bolts, nuts, raw sheet metal,
mill the metal parts, etc. Their cars may lack some refinements as
compared to a new Jeep Grand Cheokee or Dodge Magnum, but they can
honestly take credit for the finished product.


I hope they aren't stealing your intellectual
property, i.e., your astray designs.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Stephen is a person who loves to hate.

The truth is that Stephen is one of the nicest and most reasonable guys
around here. He just hates to have a loaf of **** on his dinner table. In
that regard, I'd say he's pretty human.

Cheers,

Margaret

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


In contrast, there are people all over Detroit who have little garages of
no note or notice, who still build cars from bolts, nuts, raw sheet
metal, mill the metal parts, etc. Their cars may lack some refinements as
compared to a new Jeep Grand Cheokee or Dodge Magnum, but they can
honestly take credit for the finished product.


I hope they aren't stealing your intellectual
property, i.e., your astray designs.

LOL! I'm sure his "engineering" degree from Oafland U. came in handy.

Cheers,

Margaret

"Margaret von B." wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Stephen is a person who loves to hate.

The truth is that Stephen is one of the nicest and most
reasonable guys around here.

I guess he's trying to wave a flag that says "Maggie is my Sockpuppet".

Arny, this is incredible. It will come as no surprise to you that I
think you're a deceitful posturer. But really, I am prepared to believe
someone, say in your church, must value you, that in real life you may
be someone with with friends and community respect even. But you are
doing yourself a lot of harm by attacking a real professional who works
with leading artists, and then claiming your "achievements" recording
your local church choir are equal to his -- or greater! For a start,
his recordings are widely on sale through commercial channels. That
alone makes him a professional. You used to have a good bit of
credibility on the net but now you're killing your reputation not by
small slices but with a steam shovel; you give the appearance of
someone off his rocker, or under great personal stress, or even just
plain drunk. Believe me, in precisely the same way as Pinkerton I could
never be the friend of a crude little man like you, but even I hurt for
what you're doing to yourself here. We know you don't have the grace to
apologize. But you can just let it drop. Leave the thread! -- Andre
Jute

Arny Krueger wrote:
"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's
recordings because there are none. All of the
recordings that Iain has taken credit for had most
of the work done on them by others. He has no legal
rights to them at all. Whatever small contribution
he did make to them was performed using equipment,
artists, and venues that were obtained by others and
at the expense of others.

Why do you say stuff like this? Google shows you wrong
in seconds, and none of your hair-splitting about
legal rights or collaborative work or who hired the
equipment changes that.

Look Stephen, in you usual rush to be right as opposed
to being correct you pulled your usual debating trade
schtick.

You dismissed my main point as "hair splitting", and
eliminated a thorough discussion of exactly what I
meant.

No, I dismissed your main point based on a quick Google.

OK, so you used an invalid procedure that shed no light
on my specific claims.

Your point was that Iain has made no recordings. Well,
Google says he has engineered at least one major series
of recordings.

My reference to your hair-splitting was for your
secondary "points".

More hair-splitting.

No, it's answering you exactly.

As for the main point, who engineered my Dowland
recordings?

Who cares? This is not about who got the credit for a
minor step in production.

An engineer can properly be said to have "made a
recording."

In my book Stephen that shows you once again to be a
deceptive troll.

Without a leg to stand on, you go right to the ad
hominem.

No, I'm simply being accurate.

Nope. I'm addressing your argument directly.

If you want to be responsive to the issues I raised
Stephen, then do so. Otherwise you can make an even
bigger fool of yourself on your own.

Main point: if Mr. Churches is the same person who
engineered the L'Oiseau Lyre Dowland recordings, I've
heard his work.

The point is that Churches' work is a small portion of
the larger picture called producing a recording.

Indispensable

Only in the sense that *someone* had to do it.

and not necessarily small.

not necessarily large.


Why are you
belittling recording engineers all of a sudden?

I'm not. Belittling means making their role smaller than it is. I'm simply
trying to point out that in a large organization, a recording engineer is
simply another replacable unit.

Your secondary points:

Credit taken from others who did "most of the work"? If
you don't understand recordings are often collaborative
efforts, then you probably don't have much experience
with professional recordings.

If you have to belabor this point Stephen, then its
clear you have some severe perceptual challenges. I
covered all that, and in detail. Oh, I get it Stephen,
it was all over your head and you deleted it because you
couldn't see it's relevance.

You say he doesn't "have" any recordings when he has in
fact made recordings.

Churches compares his role in the recordings he has engineers credits with
my role in my recordings. He says that they are comparable. He should knows
better. Therefore he lies.

And, no, your side issues are not relevant to the
question of whether Mr. Churches "has" any recordings.

If there are enough significant side issues, then they join together and
become the main issue.

No legal rights? Ever hear of "work for hire"?

Well Stephen, you're obviously even more perceptually
challenged than I thought if you have to raise that
question. BTW, since you seem to need it spelled our,
the answer is yes.

So an engineer working on a recording generally wouldn't
be expected to own the rights to the product.

Thanks Stephen for finally supporting one of the major points in my argument
that Church cannot reasonably compare his role in the recordings that he has
engineer's credits for to my role in the recordings that I've produced.

Equipment, artists and venues? This means he has worked
for big important recording companies as part of a
production team.

Which means that the works he takes credit for are in
fact the work of a team.

He is entitled to credit as part of a team.

However, he compares his work to a person who works solo.

He is also entitled to credit for work he has done on his own.

Does such work exist?

It's also common for freelancers to work
for the artist and record in an independent studio using
available gear.

So what?

So hiring gear isn't an important issue.

An engineer that works for a recording company can get engineers credit's
without doing even just that. Often all he has to do is look in a closet or
cupboard. An person who produces a recording on his own has far more than
that to do, in the gear selection and acquisition portion of the project.

However, an
engineer would be expected to own, hire or use whatever
it takes to make the recording.

There's a big difference between owning your own equipment and pulling
someone else's equipment out of a cupboard.

If repeating this common knowledge makes me seem
foolish, so be it.

You still don't get the difference, do you Stephen?

Sad.

I see you attacking someone in retaliation for saying
something you don't like.

Actually Stephen, I can't you see acting this poorly-informed without
trying.

As you don't have a substantive
point, you make up stuff, in this case belittling
recording engineers.

Not at all. This controversy with Churches is about him gratuitously
belittling me over a period of months. Now Stephen, you've taken his side in
his little vendetta against me. Not your first, probably not your last.

Recording engineers are not a small part of a recording team.

In terms of hands-on work, its possible for a recording engineer to get
credit for a project that he never personally touched in the physical sense.

For you to suggest otherwise smacks of sour grapes.

For Stephen to gratutitously jump into yet another a vendetta against me is
hardly surprising. Stephen is a person who loves to hate.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Indispensable

Only in the sense that *someone* had to do it.

That's all it takes...

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

In terms of hands-on work, its possible for a recording engineer to get
credit for a project that he never personally touched in the physical sense.

Nice work if you can get it. In reality, the recording engineer does
more work: selecting gear; placing mics; maintaining equipment;
pre-session set-up; post-session breakdown; documenting recording
activity; labeling recording medium or media; plus operating the
recording equipment during the session.

For you to suggest otherwise smacks of sour grapes.

For Stephen to gratutitously jump into yet another a vendetta against me is
hardly surprising. Stephen is a person who loves to hate.

Well, I resisted the urge to respond to each of your risibilities.

Is it possible that although the activities are similar his
accomplishments are greater than yours?

Stephen

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Margaret von B." wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Stephen is a person who loves to hate.

The truth is that Stephen is one of the nicest and most
reasonable guys around here.

I guess he's trying to wave a flag that says "Maggie is my Sockpuppet".

No one can operate a sock-puppet smarter than their self.

Stephen

wrote in message
ups.com...
Andre,

Proving the negative is a logical fallacy, kiddo. The world is seldom
kind and owes no one anything, least of all appreciation or
recognition. And if I were to force myself to '**** back' at every
perceived slight real or imagined, there would not be enough time for
much of anything else, and I surely would be inviting attacks were they
not real in the first place. The brute fact of the matter is that
pretty much the entire world simply does not care.

There are only seven fallacies. So far, in two posts you have managed
three. I am sure with a wee bit of research, I could find all seven in
your ramblings. However, you are yourself a most excellent and enduring
demonstration of the Pathetic Fallacy... and lest you protest from
faint knowledge yet again, that has NOTHING to do with pathos.

One wonders if you would actually pass the Turing Test.

Your most prolific fallacy is the use of the "Bellman's Proof",
something that again will likely escape you without further research.
It is sorta-kinda a combination of two of the classical references,
being circular reasoning and false premises. Betcha Don would get this
one right away as well? Don? (Actually, I hope you are not spinning
your wheels reading this tripe.)

Now, keep in mind that fragile egos _always_ have something to prove.

I feel reasonably confident that the real Andre Jute has a perfectly fine
ego, but the person who posts here is likely not that person.

Those that manage to channel the insecurity to productive ends quite
typically shine in the real world. Those who do not often subsume very
real achievements in meaningless unnecessary defenses and irrational
accusations. Were you so damned sure of your facts, you would have no
need for pointless rants and painfully silly dissertations on exactly
how many angels might dance on the head of a theoretical pin of unknown
dimensions... to an entirely uncaring audience. The saddest part of
all.

What's worse is that you and Phil spend a good deal of time answering
your own posts. Steve Dinius, a waste-of-air from another NG has that
habit, and he admits to being on very strong meds. What's your excuse?

It is my opinion, that whoever is behind the Andre Jute persona, they are
only here for the puprose of making themeslves a pain in the ass. If this
is the real Andre Jute then, what a ****head.

On 20 Dec 2005 16:01:27 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


Iain Churches, who has a veriable track record as a professional sound
recordist

"Veriable"? Hmmm...this kind of throws the question open again,
Andre. :-)

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:12:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Churches compares his role in the recordings he has engineers credits with
my role in my recordings. He says that they are comparable.

Shouldn't compare church with Churches, eh, Arnie?

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Margaret von B." wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Stephen is a person who loves to hate.

The truth is that Stephen is one of the nicest and most
reasonable guys around here.

I guess he's trying to wave a flag that says "Maggie is
my Sockpuppet".

No one can operate a sock-puppet smarter than their self.

Thanks for the additional supporting evidence.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

In terms of hands-on work, its possible for a recording
engineer to get credit for a project that he never
personally touched in the physical sense.

Nice work if you can get it. In reality, the recording
engineer does more work: selecting gear; placing mics;
maintaining equipment; pre-session set-up; post-session
breakdown; documenting recording activity; labeling
recording medium or media; plus operating the recording
equipment during the session.

In a large organization many of these functions are either pre-defined, or
done by others.

For example, gear selection in a company recording studio is almost always a
slam dunk. If you walk into a recording studio, its not like there are 1500
different mics and 150 different recorders and 150 different mixing consoles
to pick from. In a given studio there will be only one or two consoles,
one - three recorders and maybe a dozen or less different mics to chose
from.

In fact large companies tend to equip their studios similarly. There is
often only one inventory of microphones for all of the studios at one
location to draw from.

Compare that to the solo-recordist that Churches deceptively compares
himself to. A solo recordist makes all of his equipment choices from the
world marketplace. He really must choose from among 1500 or more different
mics and 150 or more different recorders and 150 or more different mixing
consoles.

I can deconstruct your whole shopping list of alternatives in a similar
fashion, Stephen.

BTW given that you claim few if chops as a recordist Stephen, why do you
even bother to try to argue with me?

Lonely and trolling again, eh Stephen? Still hoping that you'll somehow
finally catch up with me? LOL!

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Lonely and trolling again, eh Stephen? Still hoping that you'll somehow
finally catch up with me? LOL!

I'll separate this from the relatively substantive part of the post.

Trolling? No, I'm responding to your posts.

Stephen

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

In terms of hands-on work, its possible for a recording
engineer to get credit for a project that he never
personally touched in the physical sense.

Nice work if you can get it. In reality, the recording
engineer does more work: selecting gear; placing mics;
maintaining equipment; pre-session set-up; post-session
breakdown; documenting recording activity; labeling
recording medium or media; plus operating the recording
equipment during the session.

In a large organization many of these functions are either pre-defined, or
done by others.

Pre-defined as done by the recording engineer. That's his job.

For example, gear selection in a company recording studio is almost always a
slam dunk. If you walk into a recording studio, its not like there are 1500
different mics and 150 different recorders and 150 different mixing consoles
to pick from. In a given studio there will be only one or two consoles,
one - three recorders and maybe a dozen or less different mics to chose
from.

In fact large companies tend to equip their studios similarly. There is
often only one inventory of microphones for all of the studios at one
location to draw from.

Plus the inventory available for hire from equipment companies.

Compare that to the solo-recordist that Churches deceptively compares
himself to. A solo recordist makes all of his equipment choices from the
world marketplace. He really must choose from among 1500 or more different
mics and 150 or more different recorders and 150 or more different mixing
consoles.

That's the same way the company inventory was chosen, and the staff
engineer can still hire or buy from the world marketplace, less you're
suggesting a scenario in which the staff engineers become de facto
designers by spec during the bid process.

I can deconstruct your whole shopping list of alternatives in a similar
fashion, Stephen.

Unconvincingly, yes.

BTW given that you claim few if chops as a recordist Stephen, why do you
even bother to try to argue with me?

If you claim chops as a recordist. why are you belittling recordists?

Stephen

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Margaret von B." wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Stephen is a person who loves to hate.

The truth is that Stephen is one of the nicest and most
reasonable guys around here.

I guess he's trying to wave a flag that says "Maggie is
my Sockpuppet".

No one can operate a sock-puppet smarter than their self.

Thanks for the additional supporting evidence.

Of what?

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Margaret von B." wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Stephen is a person who loves to hate.

The truth is that Stephen is one of the nicest and
most reasonable guys around here.

I guess he's trying to wave a flag that says "Maggie is
my Sockpuppet".

No one can operate a sock-puppet smarter than their
self.

Thanks for the additional supporting evidence.

Of what?

Well, Maggie is really a twit. You haven't noticed? Figures. ;-)

She drops names well, but it goes downhill fast after that.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

In terms of hands-on work, its possible for a recording
engineer to get credit for a project that he never
personally touched in the physical sense.

Nice work if you can get it. In reality, the recording
engineer does more work: selecting gear; placing mics;
maintaining equipment; pre-session set-up; post-session
breakdown; documenting recording activity; labeling
recording medium or media; plus operating the recording
equipment during the session.

In a large organization many of these functions are
either pre-defined, or done by others.

Pre-defined as done by the recording engineer. That's his
job.

Wrong. Many things are predefined by the last job like this, which well may
have been done by someone else. Especially true for classical recordings.
The ensembles are and venues are typically pretty much standardized.

For example, gear selection in a company recording
studio is almost always a slam dunk. If you walk into a
recording studio, its not like there are 1500 different
mics and 150 different recorders and 150 different
mixing consoles to pick from. In a given studio there
will be only one or two consoles,
one - three recorders and maybe a dozen or less
different mics to chose from.

In fact large companies tend to equip their studios
similarly. There is often only one inventory of
microphones for all of the studios at one location to
draw from.

Plus the inventory available for hire from equipment
companies.

Hiring gets old fast for orgaqnizations who are doing the same thing month
after month, year after year.

Compare that to the solo-recordist that Churches
deceptively compares himself to. A solo recordist makes
all of his equipment choices from the world marketplace.
He really must choose from among 1500 or more different
mics and 150 or more different recorders and 150 or more
different mixing consoles.

That's the same way the company inventory was chosen,

By whom? By the senior engineers, by the engineers who did the jobs before.

and the staff engineer can still hire or buy from the world
marketplace, less you're suggesting a scenario in which
the staff engineers become de facto designers by spec
during the bid process.

Stephenm, as usual you're speculating about something you obviously know
nothing about. Sure, new equipment gets bought from time to time. Often its
chosen by senior staff, headquarters staff or a committee.

If your company has gotten great reviews for SQ for recordings of a certain
orchestra in a certain venue playing a certain kind of music, how much are
you going to change the next time you pull that job?

Since you seem to need to hear it said Stephen: as little as possible.
Nothing succeeds like success.

I can deconstruct your whole shopping list of
alternatives in a similar fashion, Stephen.

Unconvincingly, yes.

Look Stephen your play-role around here is oppose and play that you're
unconvinced about as much of what I say as you can. That's a given. It's not
like we share many experiences or philosophies, right?

BTW given that you claim few if chops as a recordist
Stephen, why do you even bother to try to argue with me?

Stephen does not answer the question

If you claim chops as a recordist. why are you belittling
recordists?

I'm not belittling *all* recordists, just an agressive big-company prick who
likes to lord it over other people based on working in a structured
environment with lots of advantages.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

In terms of hands-on work, its possible for a recording
engineer to get credit for a project that he never
personally touched in the physical sense.

Nice work if you can get it. In reality, the recording
engineer does more work: selecting gear; placing mics;
maintaining equipment; pre-session set-up; post-session
breakdown; documenting recording activity; labeling
recording medium or media; plus operating the recording
equipment during the session.

In a large organization many of these functions are
either pre-defined, or done by others.

Pre-defined as done by the recording engineer. That's his
job.

Wrong.

It's his job. Go Google some job descriptions or something.

Many things are predefined by the last job like this, which well may
have been done by someone else. Especially true for classical recordings.
The ensembles are and venues are typically pretty much standardized.

Ah. That's called experience and it doesn't preclude the engineer doing
his job.

For example, gear selection in a company recording
studio is almost always a slam dunk. If you walk into a
recording studio, its not like there are 1500 different
mics and 150 different recorders and 150 different
mixing consoles to pick from. In a given studio there
will be only one or two consoles,
one - three recorders and maybe a dozen or less
different mics to chose from.

In fact large companies tend to equip their studios
similarly. There is often only one inventory of
microphones for all of the studios at one location to
draw from.

Plus the inventory available for hire from equipment
companies.

Hiring gets old fast for orgaqnizations who are doing the same thing month
after month, year after year.

So? It still happens and engineers are expected to know what's available.

Compare that to the solo-recordist that Churches
deceptively compares himself to. A solo recordist makes
all of his equipment choices from the world marketplace.
He really must choose from among 1500 or more different
mics and 150 or more different recorders and 150 or more
different mixing consoles.

That's the same way the company inventory was chosen,

By whom? By the senior engineers, by the engineers who did the jobs before.

Weren't those people recording engineers too?

and the staff engineer can still hire or buy from the world
marketplace, less you're suggesting a scenario in which
the staff engineers become de facto designers by spec
during the bid process.

Stephenm, as usual you're speculating about something you obviously know
nothing about. Sure, new equipment gets bought from time to time. Often its
chosen by senior staff, headquarters staff or a committee.

If your company has gotten great reviews for SQ for recordings of a certain
orchestra in a certain venue playing a certain kind of music, how much are
you going to change the next time you pull that job?

Since you seem to need to hear it said Stephen: as little as possible.
Nothing succeeds like success.

That would include using the engineer who got it right in the first
place.

I can deconstruct your whole shopping list of
alternatives in a similar fashion, Stephen.

Unconvincingly, yes.

Look Stephen your play-role around here is oppose and play that you're
unconvinced about as much of what I say as you can. That's a given. It's not
like we share many experiences or philosophies, right?

I'm not pretending that you're full of it on this subject.

BTW given that you claim few if chops as a recordist
Stephen, why do you even bother to try to argue with me?

Stephen does not answer the question

So what? You started out by not answering my first question.

If you claim chops as a recordist. why are you belittling
recordists?

I'm not belittling *all* recordists, just an agressive big-company prick who
likes to lord it over other people based on working in a structured
environment with lots of advantages.

Advantage envy? Console yourself that he's probably done lots of
freelance work too.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

I'm not belittling *all* recordists, just an agressive big-company prick who
likes to lord it over other people based on working in a structured
environment with lots of advantages.

Heh.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
: "MINe 109" wrote in message
:
: Stephen is a person who loves to hate.
:
: The truth is that Stephen is one of the nicest and
: most reasonable guys around here.
:
: I guess he's trying to wave a flag that says "Maggie is
: my Sockpuppet".
:
: No one can operate a sock-puppet smarter than their
: self.
:
: Thanks for the additional supporting evidence.
:
: Of what?
:
: Well, Maggie is really a twit. You haven't noticed? Figures. ;-)
:
: She drops names well, but it goes downhill fast after that.
:
Krueger, this is one thread where smilies are somewhat out of tune.
It once more shows that you're a 'lost' sad person,
who has created such a dense fabric of beliefs around him
that it take a *miracle* to _ever_ get him out of that misery

dutch santa

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
: "MINe 109" wrote in message
:
: Stephen is a person who loves to hate.
:
: The truth is that Stephen is one of the nicest and
: most reasonable guys around here.
:
: I guess he's trying to wave a flag that says "Maggie is
: my Sockpuppet".
:
: No one can operate a sock-puppet smarter than their
: self.
:
: Thanks for the additional supporting evidence.
:
: Of what?
:
: Well, Maggie is really a twit. You haven't noticed? Figures. ;-)
:
: She drops names well, but it goes downhill fast after that.
:
Krueger, this is one thread where smilies are somewhat out of tune.
It once more shows that you're a 'lost' sad person,
who has created such a dense fabric of beliefs around him
that it take a *miracle* to _ever_ get him out of that misery

dutch santa


..40 Glock might just succeed.

Mrs. Claus, TX

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...



Well, Maggie is really a twit.



TYPO ALERT!!!

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...



Well, Maggie is really a twit.



TYPO ALERT!!!


Not really. Arnii has yet to learn that *other* word from you RAO guys.
Just like he claimed to have learned what child porn was from RAO...

Cheers,

Margaret

"Margaret von B." wrote in
message
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...



Well, Maggie is really a twit.

TYPO ALERT!!!

Not really. Arnii has yet to learn that *other* word from
you RAO guys.

Yeah sure. In reality it does not apply to Maggie nearly as well at twit.

Please see my comments about the my sale of the Ambassador Bridge, from
earlier today.

Just like he claimed to have learned what
child porn was from RAO...

As usual, Maggie is lying. What I recently claimed is that I learned about
NAMBLA from RAO. More specifically a sockpuppet named Kevin made some
allusions to it.

"Margaret von B." wrote in message
...
:
: "Ruud Broens" wrote in message
: ...

: : Thanks for the additional supporting evidence.
: :
: : Of what?
: :
: : Well, Maggie is really a twit. You haven't noticed? Figures. ;-)
: :
: : She drops names well, but it goes downhill fast after that.
: :
: Krueger, this is one thread where smilies are somewhat out of tune.
: It once more shows that you're a 'lost' sad person,
: who has created such a dense fabric of beliefs around him
: that it'd take a *miracle* to _ever_ get him out of that misery
:
: dutch santa
:
:
: .40 Glock might just succeed.
:
: Mrs. Claus, TX
:
you mean miraculous tiny-glockenspiel ? well, it _is_ that time
of the year
:-)
R.

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...

"Margaret von B." wrote in message
...
:
: "Ruud Broens" wrote in message
: ...

: : Thanks for the additional supporting evidence.
: :
: : Of what?
: :
: : Well, Maggie is really a twit. You haven't noticed? Figures. ;-)
: :
: : She drops names well, but it goes downhill fast after that.
: :
: Krueger, this is one thread where smilies are somewhat out of tune.
: It once more shows that you're a 'lost' sad person,
: who has created such a dense fabric of beliefs around him
: that it'd take a *miracle* to _ever_ get him out of that misery
:
: dutch santa
:
:
: .40 Glock might just succeed.
:
: Mrs. Claus, TX
:
you mean miraculous tiny-glockenspiel ?

Yes, the 10.16 mm one.

well, it _is_ that time
of the year
:-)
R.


Yes it is. :-)

Have you ever heard the song "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer" by Elmo
and Patsy?

Cheers,

Margaret