OT more or less:I know that I'm old, but...

[Jenn[_2_]]

....isn't singing in tune important anymore? Watching the NBA All Star
half time. Yuck.

[MiNe 109]

In article

>,
Jenn > wrote:

> ...isn't singing in tune important anymore? Watching the NBA All Star
> half time. Yuck.

Or you could go to modern country and hear it all auto-tuned.

Stephen

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article
>
> >,
> Jenn > wrote:
>
> > ...isn't singing in tune important anymore? Watching the NBA All Star
> > half time. Yuck.
>
> Or you could go to modern country and hear it all auto-tuned.
>
> Stephen

Yeah, I guess that I would take out of tune. At least it's human.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 14, 10:58*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> *MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > In article
> >
> > >,
> > *Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > ...isn't singing in tune important anymore? *Watching the NBA All Star
> > > half time. *Yuck.
>
> > Or you could go to modern country and hear it all auto-tuned.
>
> > Stephen
>
> Yeah, I guess that I would take out of tune. *At least it's human.

I heard a rumor once that Ringo's vocals were manipulated to be in
tune on Beatles albums. I wonder if that was true.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> On Feb 14, 10:58*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > >
> > > >,
> > > *Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > ...isn't singing in tune important anymore? *Watching the NBA All Star
> > > > half time. *Yuck.
> >
> > > Or you could go to modern country and hear it all auto-tuned.
> >
> > > Stephen
> >
> > Yeah, I guess that I would take out of tune. *At least it's human.
>
> I heard a rumor once that Ringo's vocals were manipulated to be in
> tune on Beatles albums. I wonder if that was true.

Not according to any of the printed sources.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Feb 15, 10:12*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 14, 10:58*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > *MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > >
> > > > >,
> > > > *Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > ...isn't singing in tune important anymore? *Watching the NBA All Star
> > > > > half time. *Yuck.
>
> > > > Or you could go to modern country and hear it all auto-tuned.
>
> > > > Stephen
>
> > > Yeah, I guess that I would take out of tune. *At least it's human.
>
> > I heard a rumor once that Ringo's vocals were manipulated to be in
> > tune on Beatles albums. I wonder if that was true.
>
> Not according to any of the printed sources.

I haven't heard that either. What is interesting, however, is the
number of Beatles songs where Paul played drums instead of Ringo.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
Boon > wrote:

> On Feb 15, 10:12*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 14, 10:58*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > *MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> >
> > > > > In article
> > > > >
> > > > > rg
> > > > > >,
> > > > > *Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > ...isn't singing in tune important anymore? *Watching the NBA All
> > > > > > Star
> > > > > > half time. *Yuck.
> >
> > > > > Or you could go to modern country and hear it all auto-tuned.
> >
> > > > > Stephen
> >
> > > > Yeah, I guess that I would take out of tune. *At least it's human.
> >
> > > I heard a rumor once that Ringo's vocals were manipulated to be in
> > > tune on Beatles albums. I wonder if that was true.
> >
> > Not according to any of the printed sources.
>
> I haven't heard that either. What is interesting, however, is the
> number of Beatles songs where Paul played drums instead of Ringo.

Yes, especially early on. There was a lot more switching around than
many people realize; George on bass, John on lead, etc.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Feb 16, 10:27*am, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *Boon > wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 10:12*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 14, 10:58*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > *MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > >
> > > > > > rg
> > > > > > >,
> > > > > > *Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > ...isn't singing in tune important anymore? *Watching the NBA All
> > > > > > > Star
> > > > > > > half time. *Yuck.
>
> > > > > > Or you could go to modern country and hear it all auto-tuned.
>
> > > > > > Stephen
>
> > > > > Yeah, I guess that I would take out of tune. *At least it's human.
>
> > > > I heard a rumor once that Ringo's vocals were manipulated to be in
> > > > tune on Beatles albums. I wonder if that was true.
>
> > > Not according to any of the printed sources.
>
> > I haven't heard that either. What is interesting, however, is the
> > number of Beatles songs where Paul played drums instead of Ringo.
>
> Yes, especially early on. *There was a lot more switching around than
> many people realize; George on bass, John on lead, etc.

The Geoff Emerick book is especially illuminating about these issues.
I've only read bits and pieces of it, but I'm tempted to buy a copy of
it today.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
Boon > wrote:

> On Feb 16, 10:27*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *Boon > wrote:
> > > On Feb 15, 10:12*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Feb 14, 10:58*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > *MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > -septemb
> > > > > > > er.o
> > > > > > > rg
> > > > > > > >,
> > > > > > > *Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > ...isn't singing in tune important anymore? *Watching the NBA
> > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > Star
> > > > > > > > half time. *Yuck.
> >
> > > > > > > Or you could go to modern country and hear it all auto-tuned.
> >
> > > > > > > Stephen
> >
> > > > > > Yeah, I guess that I would take out of tune. *At least it's human.
> >
> > > > > I heard a rumor once that Ringo's vocals were manipulated to be in
> > > > > tune on Beatles albums. I wonder if that was true.
> >
> > > > Not according to any of the printed sources.
> >
> > > I haven't heard that either. What is interesting, however, is the
> > > number of Beatles songs where Paul played drums instead of Ringo.
> >
> > Yes, especially early on. *There was a lot more switching around than
> > many people realize; George on bass, John on lead, etc.
>
> The Geoff Emerick book is especially illuminating about these issues.
> I've only read bits and pieces of it, but I'm tempted to buy a copy of
> it today.

It's an excellent book, IMO.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Feb 16, 12:48*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *Boon > wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 10:27*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> > > *Boon > wrote:
> > > > On Feb 15, 10:12*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > >,
> > > > > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 14, 10:58*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > *MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > -septemb
> > > > > > > > er.o
> > > > > > > > rg
> > > > > > > > >,
> > > > > > > > *Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > ...isn't singing in tune important anymore? *Watching the NBA
> > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > Star
> > > > > > > > > half time. *Yuck.
>
> > > > > > > > Or you could go to modern country and hear it all auto-tuned.
>
> > > > > > > > Stephen
>
> > > > > > > Yeah, I guess that I would take out of tune. *At least it's human.
>
> > > > > > I heard a rumor once that Ringo's vocals were manipulated to be in
> > > > > > tune on Beatles albums. I wonder if that was true.
>
> > > > > Not according to any of the printed sources.
>
> > > > I haven't heard that either. What is interesting, however, is the
> > > > number of Beatles songs where Paul played drums instead of Ringo.
>
> > > Yes, especially early on. *There was a lot more switching around than
> > > many people realize; George on bass, John on lead, etc.
>
> > The Geoff Emerick book is especially illuminating about these issues.
> > I've only read bits and pieces of it, but I'm tempted to buy a copy of
> > it today.
>
> It's an excellent book, IMO.

I was visiting a friend and he had a copy on his coffee table. I spent
a couple of hours leafing through it and told myself that I had to get
a copy for myself.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 14, 10:58 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> MiNe 109 > wrote:
>
> > In article
> >
> > >,
> > Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > ...isn't singing in tune important anymore? Watching the NBA All Star
> > > half time. Yuck.
>
> > Or you could go to modern country and hear it all auto-tuned.
>
> > Stephen
>
> Yeah, I guess that I would take out of tune. At least it's human.

>I heard a rumor once that Ringo's vocals were manipulated to be in
>tune on Beatles albums. I wonder if that was true.

Pitch change without tempo change was a much later,
digital process. He was not the world's greatest singer
but he always made a fair job of the vocals he was
given, "Act Naturally" was pretty good:-)

It was of course possible to bring a guitar tuned flat to the
right pitch by running the tape a little slower whe recording.

This same trick could be used as an double tracking
effect too, by recording the first guitar at the right speed,
and slowing the tape by 2% (about a quarter of a semitone)
for the second pass. At the right speed. the second guitar
sounded brighter, and the overall effect, with the two
panned l+r was like a massive twelve string:-)

Iain

[James Smith]

"Jenn" > wrote :

> ...isn't singing in tune important anymore?


Depends on context.

No charge.



--


Jim Smith

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"James Smith" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote :
>
> > ...isn't singing in tune important anymore?
>
>
> Depends on context.

It does?

[James Smith]

"Jenn" > wrote :
>>
>> > ...isn't singing in tune important anymore?
>>
>>
>> Depends on context.
>
> It does?


Wow - Jann posts a message without namedropping some old hasbeen.

Well done!!

--


Jim Smith

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"James Smith" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote :
> >>
> >> > ...isn't singing in tune important anymore?
> >>
> >>
> >> Depends on context.
> >
> > It does?
>
>
> Wow - Jann posts a message without namedropping some old hasbeen.
>
> Well done!!

Way to avoid the question.

[Glanbrok[_2_]]

On Mar 6, 3:19*pm, Jenn > wrote:

> Way to avoid the question.

Some time ago, when the "James Smith" pseudonym first appeared, it was
suggested that this persona is a sockpuppet animated by the Krooborg.

Does anybody else feel nostalgia for the time when Yoon-Yoon the Idiot
Pandaborg used to leap to Mr. ****'s defense? <G>

[Boon[_2_]]

On Mar 7, 12:45*pm, Glanbrok > wrote:
> On Mar 6, 3:19*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > Way to avoid the question.
>
> Some time ago, when the "James Smith" pseudonym first appeared, it was
> suggested that this persona is a sockpuppet animated by the Krooborg.

That was me. Since then I've changed my mind.

>
> Does anybody else feel nostalgia for the time when Yoon-Yoon the Idiot
> Pandaborg used to leap to Mr. ****'s defense? <G>

I barely remember that guy.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
Boon > wrote:

> On Mar 7, 12:45*pm, Glanbrok > wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 3:19*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > Way to avoid the question.
> >
> > Some time ago, when the "James Smith" pseudonym first appeared, it was
> > suggested that this persona is a sockpuppet animated by the Krooborg.
>
> That was me. Since then I've changed my mind.

There were a couple of times when Arny was waiting to pounce on replies
to "Smith" posts.

Stephen

> > Does anybody else feel nostalgia for the time when Yoon-Yoon the Idiot
> > Pandaborg used to leap to Mr. ****'s defense? <G>
>
> I barely remember that guy.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Mar 7, 9:09*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> *Boon > wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 12:45 pm, Glanbrok > wrote:
> > > On Mar 6, 3:19 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > Way to avoid the question.
>
> > > Some time ago, when the "James Smith" pseudonym first appeared, it was
> > > suggested that this persona is a sockpuppet animated by the Krooborg.
>
> > That was me. Since then I've changed my mind.
>
> There were a couple of times when Arny was waiting to pounce on replies
> to "Smith" posts.

Yeah, but I remember seeing something that proved it wasn't Arny. I
don't care enough to recall what it was, though.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 7, 11:29*pm, Boon > wrote:
> On Mar 7, 9:09*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *Boon > wrote:
> > > On Mar 7, 12:45 pm, Glanbrok > wrote:
> > > > On Mar 6, 3:19 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > Way to avoid the question.
>
> > > > Some time ago, when the "James Smith" pseudonym first appeared, it was
> > > > suggested that this persona is a sockpuppet animated by the Krooborg.
>
> > > That was me. Since then I've changed my mind.
>
> > There were a couple of times when Arny was waiting to pounce on replies
> > to "Smith" posts.
>
> Yeah, but I remember seeing something that proved it wasn't Arny. I
> don't care enough to recall what it was, though.

Did James say something funny?

[Boon[_2_]]

On Mar 9, 12:02*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 11:29*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 9:09*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> > > *Boon > wrote:
> > > > On Mar 7, 12:45 pm, Glanbrok > wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 6, 3:19 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Way to avoid the question.
>
> > > > > Some time ago, when the "James Smith" pseudonym first appeared, it was
> > > > > suggested that this persona is a sockpuppet animated by the Krooborg.
>
> > > > That was me. Since then I've changed my mind.
>
> > > There were a couple of times when Arny was waiting to pounce on replies
> > > to "Smith" posts.
>
> > Yeah, but I remember seeing something that proved it wasn't Arny. I
> > don't care enough to recall what it was, though.
>
> Did James say something funny?

Yeah, that was it!

[James Smith]

"Boon" > wrote :

>> > > Some time ago, when the "James Smith" pseudonym first appeared, it
>> > > was
>> > > suggested that this persona is a sockpuppet animated by the Krooborg.
>>
>> > That was me. Since then I've changed my mind.
>>
>> There were a couple of times when Arny was waiting to pounce on replies
>> to "Smith" posts.
>
>Yeah, but I remember seeing something that proved it wasn't Arny.

For your edification I will give you an example of what proof is, so that
you may understand what it is. Here follows a verbatim quote from you
posting under the pseudonym "calvin coolidge" (message id:
) which
proves that you are a liar.

Enjoy ;-)



Question posed to Marc :

Are you sure "James" was the Krooglebeast's sockpuppet?

Marc's response :

It was verified using software programs... Plus he admitted it in a private
email.

Marc contradicts himself :

I remember seeing something that proved it wasn't Arny.



--


Jim Smith

[Boon[_2_]]

On Mar 17, 5:34*pm, "James Smith" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote :
>
> >> > > Some time ago, when the "James Smith" pseudonym first appeared, it
> >> > > was
> >> > > suggested that this persona is a sockpuppet animated by the Krooborg.
>
> >> > That was me. Since then I've changed my mind.
>
> >> There were a couple of times when Arny was waiting to pounce on replies
> >> to "Smith" posts.
>
> >Yeah, but I remember seeing something that proved it wasn't Arny.
>
> For your edification I will give you an example of what proof is, so that
> you may understand what it is. Here follows a verbatim quote from you
> posting under the pseudonym "calvin coolidge" (message id:
> ) which
> proves that you are a liar.
>
> Enjoy ;-)
>
> Question posed to Marc :
>
> Are you sure "James" was the Krooglebeast's sockpuppet?
>
> Marc's response :
>
> It was verified using software programs... Plus he admitted it in a private
> email.
>
> Marc contradicts himself :
>
> I remember seeing something that proved it wasn't Arny.

That's not a contradiction. Duh.

[James Smith]

"Boon" > wrote :

>That's not a contradiction. Duh.

A contradiction is precisely what it is. Double Duh!

Again :

Marc said :
"It was [proven] verified [that Jim Smith is Arny]."

Marc said :
"I remember seeing something that proved it wasn't Arny."


You are a liar, but not a very good one.


--


Jim Smith

[Boon[_2_]]

On Mar 18, 5:49*am, "James Smith" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote :
>
> >That's not a contradiction. Duh.
>
> A contradiction is precisely what it is. Double Duh!

No, a contradiction is precisely what you're doing right now. You're
just being contrary without backing it up.

>
> Again :
>
> Marc said :
> "It was [proven] verified [that Jim Smith is Arny]."
>
> Marc said :
> "I remember seeing something that proved it wasn't Arny."
>
> You are a liar, but not a very good one.

It's not lying...it's changing one's mind. Are you saying that
everyone who changes their mind is a liar?

Now you do sound like Arny. Idiot.

[Glanbrok[_2_]]

On Mar 18, 1:41*pm, Boon > wrote:

> It's not lying...it's changing one's mind. Are you saying that
> everyone who changes their mind is a liar?
> Now you do sound like Arny. Idiot.

James is probably very proud of his C+ in Kroologic 101.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Mar 18, 2:03*pm, Glanbrok > wrote:
> On Mar 18, 1:41*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > It's not lying...it's changing one's mind. Are you saying that
> > everyone who changes their mind is a liar?
> > Now you do sound like Arny. Idiot.
>
> James is probably very proud of his C+ in Kroologic 101.

Well, it is Arny's MO to latch onto an off-the-cuff remark and ride it
for all it's worth.

[James Smith]

"Boon" > wrote :
>>
>> >That's not a contradiction. Duh.
>>
>> A contradiction is precisely what it is. Double Duh!
>
>No

Yes




>>
>> Again :
>>
>> Marc said :
>> "It was [proven] verified [that Jim Smith is Arny]."
>>
>> Marc said :
>> "I remember seeing something that proved it wasn't Arny."
>>
>> You are a liar, but not a very good one.
>
>It's not lying...it's changing one's mind.

No, you're a filthy liar who pretended it was " proven " that I'm Arny.





--


Jim Smith

[James Smith]

"Boon" > wrote :
>>
>> > It's not lying...it's changing one's mind. Are you saying that
>> > everyone who changes their mind is a liar?
>> > Now you do sound like Arny. Idiot.
>>
>> James is probably very proud of his C+ in Kroologic 101.
>
>Well, it is Arny's MO to latch onto an off-the-cuff remark and ride it
>for all it's worth.

This guy is a bare faced liar !

He actually stalked me on another group to spread more lies.


--


Jim Smith

[Boon[_2_]]

On Mar 19, 2:19*pm, "James Smith" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote *:
>
>
>
> >> >That's not a contradiction. Duh.
>
> >> A contradiction is precisely what it is. Double Duh!
>
> >No
>
> Yes
>
>
>
> >> Again :
>
> >> Marc said :
> >> "It was [proven] verified [that Jim Smith is Arny]."
>
> >> Marc said :
> >> "I remember seeing something that proved it wasn't Arny."
>
> >> You are a liar, but not a very good one.
>
> >It's not lying...it's changing one's mind.
>
> No, you're a filthy liar who pretended it was " proven " that I'm Arny.

No, I'm not. Like your soulmate, you have trouble with understanding
the written word. You also label anything you don't like as a lie.
That's why you have to bracket your own interpretations of what I said
above with your own commentary. Your singular argument is simply no
good.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Mar 19, 2:22*pm, "James Smith" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote *:
>
>
>
> >> > It's not lying...it's changing one's mind. Are you saying that
> >> > everyone who changes their mind is a liar?
> >> > Now you do sound like Arny. Idiot.
>
> >> James is probably very proud of his C+ in Kroologic 101.
>
> >Well, it is Arny's MO to latch onto an off-the-cuff remark and ride it
> >for all it's worth.
>
> This guy is a bare faced liar !
>
> He actually stalked me on another group to spread more lies.

Arny did? Bad Arny!

If you'd just go back on your meds, maybe you wouldn't have these
identities crises.