concerning r.a.p

[Tommi]

There seem to be people who post topics which have only little or nothing to
do with the real purpose of this newsgroup, like "FM radio antenna height"
and "what soundcard's the best for playing games and making music". These
kind of topics should be posted somewhere else, they have nothing to do with
professional audio.
Please try to avoid posting these kind of topics here, that just distracts
the users when they're trying to find an interesting, informative topic
which has something to do professional audio.
Here's a link which should clarify when to use r.a.p. Sorry for the
negative-sounding post. :)



http://www.vex.net/~pcook/RecAudioPro/index.html

[Les Cargill]

Tommi wrote:
>
> There seem to be people who post topics which have only little or nothing to
> do with the real purpose of this newsgroup, like "FM radio antenna height"
> and "what soundcard's the best for playing games and making music". These
> kind of topics should be posted somewhere else, they have nothing to do with
> professional audio.
> Please try to avoid posting these kind of topics here, that just distracts
> the users when they're trying to find an interesting, informative topic
> which has something to do professional audio.
> Here's a link which should clarify when to use r.a.p. Sorry for the
> negative-sounding post. :)
>
> http://www.vex.net/~pcook/RecAudioPro/index.html

Also, some questions would be best directed to alt.music.4-track.

--
Les Cargill

[John L Rice]

"Tommi" > wrote in message
...
> There seem to be people who post topics which have only little or nothing
to
> do with the real purpose of this newsgroup, like "FM radio antenna height"
> and "what soundcard's the best for playing games and making music". These
> kind of topics should be posted somewhere else, they have nothing to do
with
> professional audio.
> Please try to avoid posting these kind of topics here, that just distracts
> the users when they're trying to find an interesting, informative topic
> which has something to do professional audio.
> Here's a link which should clarify when to use r.a.p. Sorry for the
> negative-sounding post. :)
>
>
>
> http://www.vex.net/~pcook/RecAudioPro/index.html
>


Your link wasn't working, at least for me. The rec.audio.pro FAQ can also
be found at the official site :
http://www.recaudiopro.net/faq/index.htm

John L Rice

[axtogrind]

"Tommi" > wrote

> There seem to be people who post topics which have only little or nothing
to
> do with the real purpose of this newsgroup, like "FM radio antenna height"

snip


Sadly, the people to whom this message applies will never read it. If they
would or could, they wouldn't post that stuff here anyway!

atg

[LLLindblad]

Man, Roger! I can't believe you forgot the 4 man scramble or at the least a
proposal for a Monster Ramps tv series.............sheesh, drink some coffee.

hehe
tuna

[Billy Bee]

I'd like to protest those who post messages denigrating those who post
messages outside the dogmatic requirements of any newsgroup. Seeing and
reading these posts not only causes me considerable consternation, but
wastes my precious time as well.
And God know, I don't want to waste ANY precious time with my reading and
enjoying the posts on RAP.

BB


"Tommi" > wrote in message
...
> There seem to be people who post topics which have only little or nothing
to
> do with the real purpose of this newsgroup, like "FM radio antenna height"
> and "what soundcard's the best for playing games and making music". These
> kind of topics should be posted somewhere else, they have nothing to do
with
> professional audio.
> Please try to avoid posting these kind of topics here, that just distracts
> the users when they're trying to find an interesting, informative topic
> which has something to do professional audio.
> Here's a link which should clarify when to use r.a.p. Sorry for the
> negative-sounding post. :)
>
>
>
> http://www.vex.net/~pcook/RecAudioPro/index.html
>
>

[Don Pearce]

On 09 Sep 2003 16:52:07 GMT, (ScotFraser) wrote:

><< These
>> kind of topics should be posted somewhere else, they have nothing to do
>with
>> professional audio. >>
>
>Apparently it's a gray area, but there are those who steadfastly insist that
>the "Pro" in rec.audio.pro refers only to "Production" not "Professional"
>audio. Apparently the truth is lost in the past & would require a conversation
>with the ghost of Gabe Wiener.
>
>
>
>Scott Fraser

Wouldn't it all have been so much easier if the group had been called
rec.audio.prod

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

[ScotFraser]

<< Wouldn't it all have been so much easier if the group had been called
rec.audio.prod >>

Then we'd end up with a lot of cowboys discussing modifications to up the
voltage of their cattle prods.


Scott Fraser

[Harvey Gerst]

Don Pearce > wrote:

>On 09 Sep 2003 16:52:07 GMT, (ScotFraser) wrote:
>
>>>These kind of topics should be posted somewhere else, they have nothing to do
>>>with professional audio.

>>Apparently it's a gray area, but there are those who steadfastly insist that
>>the "Pro" in rec.audio.pro refers only to "Production" not "Professional"
>>audio. Apparently the truth is lost in the past & would require a conversation
>>with the ghost of Gabe Wiener.
>>Scott Fraser

>Wouldn't it all have been so much easier if the group had been called
>rec.audio.prod

Actually Gabe DID address it in the FAQ, which clearly shows the intent was
"rec.audio.professional".

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/

[Roger W. Norman]

Yep. He specifically mentioned production by professionals, so either one
is correct, but the correct concept seems to be both at the same time.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Harvey Gerst" > wrote in message
...
> Don Pearce > wrote:
>
> >On 09 Sep 2003 16:52:07 GMT, (ScotFraser) wrote:
> >
> >>>These kind of topics should be posted somewhere else, they have nothing
to do
> >>>with professional audio.
>
> >>Apparently it's a gray area, but there are those who steadfastly insist
that
> >>the "Pro" in rec.audio.pro refers only to "Production" not
"Professional"
> >>audio. Apparently the truth is lost in the past & would require a
conversation
> >>with the ghost of Gabe Wiener.
> >>Scott Fraser
>
> >Wouldn't it all have been so much easier if the group had been called
> >rec.audio.prod
>
> Actually Gabe DID address it in the FAQ, which clearly shows the intent
was
> "rec.audio.professional".
>
> Harvey Gerst
> Indian Trail Recording Studio
> http://www.ITRstudio.com/

[Tommi]

"Billy Bee" > wrote in message
. ..
> I'd like to protest those who post messages denigrating those who post
> messages outside the dogmatic requirements of any newsgroup. Seeing and
> reading these posts not only causes me considerable consternation, but
> wastes my precious time as well.
> And God know, I don't want to waste ANY precious time with my reading and
> enjoying the posts on RAP.
>

Billy, why then waste precious time replying to this waste of time?
Seeing and reading this kind of message which denigrates those who try to
keep topics
somewhere near professional audio, well, doesn't exactly waste my precious
time but makes me
wonder how differently people react..

atg said that "sanity is all about being able to filter the background noise
from the conversation at hand. Useful skill, that."
Good point, that's true. Still, taking the figure-of-speech a bit further,
it is still much more meaningful and informative to listen to a person in a
quiet room than near a space shuttle launch pad eh..

[Billy Bee]

Hey Tommi, I was just being sarcastic. There really are some crazy posts to
wade through but to me that's all part of the fun. I waste PLENTY of time
reading posts that have nothing to do with recreation.audio.professional.or
production. I find them humorous, annoying and sometimes insightful and
whether I like it or not, I'm drawn to some of the threads like a moth to
light. Look at how the political threads take off in this group.
I guess I see it as a community, sometimes with visitors from far off lands
passing through and in the end, I've learned a ton from just about
everything I've read here.
Didn't mean to offend.
Bill

"Tommi" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Billy Bee" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > I'd like to protest those who post messages denigrating those who post
> > messages outside the dogmatic requirements of any newsgroup. Seeing and
> > reading these posts not only causes me considerable consternation, but
> > wastes my precious time as well.
> > And God know, I don't want to waste ANY precious time with my reading
and
> > enjoying the posts on RAP.
> >
>
> Billy, why then waste precious time replying to this waste of time?
> Seeing and reading this kind of message which denigrates those who try to
> keep topics
> somewhere near professional audio, well, doesn't exactly waste my precious
> time but makes me
> wonder how differently people react..
>
> atg said that "sanity is all about being able to filter the background
noise
> from the conversation at hand. Useful skill, that."
> Good point, that's true. Still, taking the figure-of-speech a bit further,
> it is still much more meaningful and informative to listen to a person in
a
> quiet room than near a space shuttle launch pad eh..
>
>
>

[Tommi]

Sorry Billy, Ijust wasn't sure! Must be because english isn't my first
language, so the subtleties go unnoticed in some sentences..I agree,
sometimes it's enjoyable to read some of the weird posts! But when I'm
having a bad day some of the "serious" off-topic stuff here just makes me
wonder why someone's asking rap about editing your FM radio presets in your
car..or something.

[Billy Bee]

No worries, and by the way, what's the VERY BEST microphone for under $200?

"Tommi" > wrote in message
...
> Sorry Billy, Ijust wasn't sure! Must be because english isn't my first
> language, so the subtleties go unnoticed in some sentences..I agree,
> sometimes it's enjoyable to read some of the weird posts! But when I'm
> having a bad day some of the "serious" off-topic stuff here just makes me
> wonder why someone's asking rap about editing your FM radio presets in
your
> car..or something.
>
>

[ScotFraser]

<< Yep. He specifically mentioned production by professionals, so either one
is correct, but the correct concept seems to be both at the same time. >>

So it really should be rec.audio.propro.


Scott Fraser

[Tommi]

The SM57 of course. No wait, it's the D112..on the other hand, AT makes some
really...but the best must be....

[Billy Bee]

Sorry, I just read in the FAQ that I should have posted what I want to use
the 'best mic for under $200 for' (dang that participle) and I want to let
you know that I will be using the mic to replace the antenna on my car which
I shortened thanks to the advice of the group so now my car fits in the
garage but the radio doesn't come in too good so I thought a cheap
microphone might help me pick up the radio better.
Or something like that.



"Tommi" > wrote in message
...
> The SM57 of course. No wait, it's the D112..on the other hand, AT makes
some
> really...but the best must be....
>
>

[Chris Smalt]

Don wrote:

> Wouldn't it all have been so much easier if the group had been called
> rec.audio.prod


And wouldn't it all have been so much messier had it been called
rec.audio.pr !


Chris

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 20:25:21 -0500, Harvey Gerst
> wrote:

>Don Pearce > wrote:
>
>>On 09 Sep 2003 16:52:07 GMT, (ScotFraser) wrote:
>>
>>>>These kind of topics should be posted somewhere else, they have nothing to do
>>>>with professional audio.
>
>>>Apparently it's a gray area, but there are those who steadfastly insist that
>>>the "Pro" in rec.audio.pro refers only to "Production" not "Professional"
>>>audio. Apparently the truth is lost in the past & would require a conversation
>>>with the ghost of Gabe Wiener.
>>>Scott Fraser
>
>>Wouldn't it all have been so much easier if the group had been called
>>rec.audio.prod
>
>Actually Gabe DID address it in the FAQ, which clearly shows the intent was
>"rec.audio.professional".
>
>Harvey Gerst
>Indian Trail Recording Studio
>http://www.ITRstudio.com/

Really? If so I would have to say that the terms "recreational" and
"professional" are pretty much fighting each other.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Harvey Gerst]

>>>>These kind of topics should be posted somewhere else, they have nothing to do
>>>>with professional audio.
>>>>Don Pearce

>>>Apparently it's a gray area, but there are those who steadfastly insist that
>>>the "Pro" in rec.audio.pro refers only to "Production" not "Professional"
>>>audio. Apparently the truth is lost in the past & would require a conversation
>>>with the ghost of Gabe Wiener.
>>>Scott Fraser

>>Actually Gabe DID address it in the FAQ, which clearly shows the intent was
>>"rec.audio.professional".
>>Harvey Gerst

>Really? If so I would have to say that the terms "recreational" and
>"professional" are pretty much fighting each other.
>Don Pearce

At the time "rec.audio.pro" was formed, there were very few subject categories
available for usenet forums; we weren't "government" or "science". "rec" was
the closest fit.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/

[Roger W. Norman]

1/4 wave, dude, so put the rest of the antenna back on and bend it back over
the car towards the trunk.

Oh, you mean radio, not CB.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Billy Bee" > wrote in message
news:SSM7b.311665$Oz4.99999@rwcrnsc54...
> Sorry, I just read in the FAQ that I should have posted what I want to use
> the 'best mic for under $200 for' (dang that participle) and I want to let
> you know that I will be using the mic to replace the antenna on my car
which
> I shortened thanks to the advice of the group so now my car fits in the
> garage but the radio doesn't come in too good so I thought a cheap
> microphone might help me pick up the radio better.
> Or something like that.
>
>
>
> "Tommi" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The SM57 of course. No wait, it's the D112..on the other hand, AT makes
> some
> > really...but the best must be....
> >
> >
>
>