Re: It's very popular..

[GeoSynch]

Dormer reported:

> http://www.stopwar.org.uk/

> "Bandwidth Limit Exceeded"

Oh yeah, so popular, that only around about 30,000 protestors
had shown up instead of the wildly predicted 200,000 and they
were all probably leftist malcontents, the habitually unemployed
and hooligans on a lark. What a farce that turned out to be. :-)


GeoSynch

[GeoSynch]

Dormer diddled:

> >> http://www.stopwar.org.uk/

> >> "Bandwidth Limit Exceeded"

> >Oh yeah, so popular, that only around about 30,000 protestors
> >had shown up instead of the wildly predicted 200,000 and they

> Both numbers are incorrect.

Spoken like a true prevaricator.


GeoSynch

[GeoSynch]

Dormer gets "G.S. Nail"ed:

> >> >Oh yeah, so popular, that only around about 30,000 protestors
> >> >had shown up instead of the wildly predicted 200,000 and they

> >> Both numbers are incorrect.

> >Spoken like a true prevaricator.

> You post incorrect numbers, I point out that they deviate from the
> truth, and you call me a prevaricator? PTOOIGBOI!

"200,000 ... according to organisers. Police estimated the turn-out at 30,000."
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_53281.asp?MSID=f5085522665b40728a38a3b6c36f7 c76

"Scotland Yard's official estimate was 25-30,000."
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031120/140/eei43.html

"London's Metropolitan Police figured the number of participants at only 30,000..."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10923

Likely source of Dormer's giddy delusional jubilation:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/lond-n21.shtml


GeoSynch

[dave weil]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:08:35 GMT, "GeoSynch"
> wrote:

>Dormer gets "G.S. Nail"ed:
>
>> >> >Oh yeah, so popular, that only around about 30,000 protestors
>> >> >had shown up instead of the wildly predicted 200,000 and they
>
>> >> Both numbers are incorrect.
>
>> >Spoken like a true prevaricator.
>
>> You post incorrect numbers, I point out that they deviate from the
>> truth, and you call me a prevaricator? PTOOIGBOI!
>
>"200,000 ... according to organisers. Police estimated the turn-out at 30,000."
>http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_53281.asp?MSID=f5085522665b40728a38a3b6c36f7 c76
>
>"Scotland Yard's official estimate was 25-30,000."
>http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031120/140/eei43.html
>
>"London's Metropolitan Police figured the number of participants at only 30,000..."
>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10923
>
>Likely source of Dormer's giddy delusional jubilation:
>http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/lond-n21.shtml
>
>
>GeoSynch

Hmmmm, you must have missed *this* one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3223780.stm


Protesters marched through central London to Trafalgar Square
Tens of thousands of people have protested in London against President
Bush and the war on Iraq. Organisers claim 200,000 joined the
demonstration, although police put the numbers closer to 100,000.

Whooops!

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said to Styncho:

> Protesters marched through central London to Trafalgar Square
> Tens of thousands of people have protested in London against President
> Bush and the war on Iraq. Organisers claim 200,000 joined the
> demonstration, although police put the numbers closer to 100,000.
>
> Whooops!

Stynchie imagined they were all armed, in keeping with their
"Constitutional Rights", so he counted them double because they're his
kind of citizens.

[GeoSynch]

dave weil wrote:

> >> >> >Oh yeah, so popular, that only around about 30,000 protestors
> >> >> >had shown up instead of the wildly predicted 200,000 and they

> >> >> Both numbers are incorrect.

> >> >Spoken like a true prevaricator.

> >> You post incorrect numbers, I point out that they deviate from the
> >> truth, and you call me a prevaricator? PTOOIGBOI!

> >"200,000 ... according to organisers. Police estimated the turn-out at 30,000."
> >http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_53281.asp?MSID=f5085522665b40728a38a3b6c36f7 c76

> >"Scotland Yard's official estimate was 25-30,000."
> >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031120/140/eei43.html

> >"London's Metropolitan Police figured the number of participants at only 30,000..."
> >http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10923

> >Likely source of Dormer's giddy delusional jubilation:
> >http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/lond-n21.shtml

> Hmmmm, you must have missed *this* one:

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3223780.stm

> Protesters marched through central London to Trafalgar Square
> Tens of thousands of people have protested in London against President
> Bush and the war on Iraq. Organisers claim 200,000 joined the
> demonstration, although police put the numbers closer to 100,000.

> Whooops!

The Beeb's about as credible as the New York Times.


GeoSynch

[George M. Middius]

StynchBlob whined:

> The Beeb's about as credible as the New York Times.

Nary a proper reference to Jesus in the whole paper, let alone every
third paragraph. Of course they're not "credible".

[GeoSynch]

Pudge the Gimp whimpered:

> > The Beeb's about as credible as the New York Times.

> Nary a proper reference to Jesus in the whole paper, let alone every
> third paragraph. Of course they're not "credible".

Arny was crowing a few days ago you got your butt kicked on
another rec.audio group.

It must have been a mighty big kick. ;-)

As Lionel would say: "WARF WARF WARF WARF WARF"


GeoSynch

[George M. Middius]

Styncho buys into some intensely fecal Kroopaganda.

> > Nary a proper reference to Jesus in the whole paper, let alone every
> > third paragraph. Of course they're not "credible".

> Arny was crowing a few days ago you got your butt kicked on
> another rec.audio group.

It figures that somebody who believes a guy literally came back from
the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine, conversed with a
bush, etc. would also believe Arnii Krooger is capable of saying
something cogent.

Pray much? ;-)


> As Lionella would say: "WARF WARF WARF WARF WARF"

Doesn't matter how cretinous your fellow travelers are, does it -- as
long as they feel sufficiently inferior to Mighty Middius.

[Lionel]

GeoSynch wrote:

> Pudge the Gimp whimpered:
>
>
>>>The Beeb's about as credible as the New York Times.
>
>
>>Nary a proper reference to Jesus in the whole paper, let alone every
>>third paragraph. Of course they're not "credible".
>
>
> Arny was crowing a few days ago you got your butt kicked on
> another rec.audio group.
>
> It must have been a mighty big kick. ;-)
>
> As Lionel would say: "WARF WARF WARF WARF WARF"
>
>
> GeoSynch
>
>

You cannot kick Middius butt more than it is daily kick. It has already
suffered all the outrages, it is insensible now.

[Lionel]

George M. Middius wrote:

> Doesn't matter how cretinous your fellow travelers are, does it -- as
> long as they feel sufficiently inferior to Mighty Middius.
>
>

Warf !

[GeoSynch]

Pudge the Gimp hobbled along:

> Doesn't matter how cretinous your fellow travelers are, does it -- as
> long as they feel sufficiently inferior to Mighty Middius.

The Mighty Mid-Yut has quite a ring to it. LOL

Your mother and sister disowned you and wouldn't permit you to use
the family name ... well, who can blame them? :-(


GeoSynch

[GeoSynch]

Lionel wrote:

> You cannot kick Middius butt more than it is daily kick. It has already
> suffered all the outrages, it is insensible now.

The masochistic Mid-Yut needs to have his gigantic rump flayed ever more
severely just to feel it anymore.


GeoSynch

[John Atkinson]

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
.net>...
> so popular, that only around about 30,000 protestors
> had shown up instead of the wildly predicted 200,000

Hi GeoSynch, I was in London last week and offical figures reported
by the Metropolitan police were either 70,000 or 100,000, depending
on the newspaper or radio station. No offial source reported 30,000.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[GeoSynch]

John Atkinson wrote:

> > so popular, that only around about 30,000 protestors
> > had shown up instead of the wildly predicted 200,000

> Hi GeoSynch, I was in London last week and offical figures reported
> by the Metropolitan police were either 70,000 or 100,000, depending
> on the newspaper or radio station. No offial source reported 30,000.

Hi John, it appears the 70,000 was the initial Scotland Yard estimate
that was later reduced to 30,000.

What were you up to in London, might I ask?


GeoSynch

[dave weil]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 22:35:26 GMT, "GeoSynch"
> wrote:

>
>The Beeb's about as credible as the New York Times.

GMAB.

You're calling the right wing FrontPage Magazine any more "credible"
than the Times or the Beeb?

Here's the the OFFICIAL Metropolitan Police website says:

Demand: Despite more than 100,000 demonstrators participating, the
largest midweek protest in London’s history, passed off peacefully.

http://www.met.police.uk/job/job917/live_files/6.htm

You might know The Metropolitan Police under another name: Scotland
Yard.

So, I guess those other reports are just...well, wrong.

Apologize NOW, please.

[GeoSynch]

dave weil wrote:

> >The Beeb's about as credible as the New York Times.

> GMAB.

> You're calling the right wing FrontPage Magazine any more "credible"
> than the Times or the Beeb?

Well, FrontPage is not any less credible than BBC or NY Times, IMO!

FrontPage was the first place I encountered the 200,000 versus the
70,000 or 30,000 protester figures.

> Here's the the OFFICIAL Metropolitan Police website says:

> Demand: Despite more than 100,000 demonstrators participating, the
> largest midweek protest in London's history, passed off peacefully.

> http://www.met.police.uk/job/job917/live_files/6.htm

> You might know The Metropolitan Police under another name: Scotland
> Yard.

So they are, as can be gleaned from the FAQ page.
And the 100,000 figures is quoted again on this page:
http://www.met.police.uk/job/job917/live_files/1.htm

> So, I guess those other reports are just...well, wrong.

> Apologize NOW, please.

Here are a few other 30,000 or 70,000 protester sources:
http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/ck/Qbritain-us-bush-demos.RIrC_DNK.html

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200nationalnews/content_objectid=13645157_method=full_siteid=50002 _headline=-Bush-demo--largest-weekday-protest--name_page.html

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031120-090511-8477r.htm

And the interesting thing is that all these various sources I've cited claim
Scotland Yard as the source for those protester estimations.

If any apologies are due, I believe it should be from Scotland Yard for
giving out such widely disparate estimates of proster sizes.

What do you think?


GeoSynch

[dave weil]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 02:21:44 GMT, "GeoSynch"
> wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>
>> >The Beeb's about as credible as the New York Times.
>
>> GMAB.
>
>> You're calling the right wing FrontPage Magazine any more "credible"
>> than the Times or the Beeb?
>
>Well, FrontPage is not any less credible than BBC or NY Times, IMO!

The thing that you quoted wasn't even a "hard" news source. It was a
right wing columist's column. and, frankly, you didn't even quote it
correctly. Here's the first paragraph:

"Yesterday's anti-American rallies in London failed in their goal to
inspire leftists around the world to keep up the battle against the
governments of Bush and Blair. Although Stop The War (STW), the
coalition formally behind the protests, estimated 200,000 people took
part in the rallies, Scotland Yard offered a more conservative
estimate: _70,000_, just over one-third of STW's figure. Moreover,
most of those who attended had probably not heard of the attack on
that morning's twin explosions in Istanbul, which claimed the life of
British Consul-General Roger Short before setting out for the protest.
No clear-headed Briton would be in the streets protesting against his
own government after that very government had just come under attack.
Hence, even these numbers are artificially high".

Here was the previous column:

London's Radicals Lie in Wait for Bush

Yep, sounds like impartiality and a 'credible" source to me. <cue
sarcasm button>

>FrontPage was the first place I encountered the 200,000 versus the
>70,000 or 30,000 protester figures.

And actually, you encountered the 70,000 figure but somehow
misinterpreted it.

>> Here's the the OFFICIAL Metropolitan Police website says:
>
>> Demand: Despite more than 100,000 demonstrators participating, the
>> largest midweek protest in London's history, passed off peacefully.
>
>> http://www.met.police.uk/job/job917/live_files/6.htm
>
>> You might know The Metropolitan Police under another name: Scotland
>> Yard.
>
>So they are, as can be gleaned from the FAQ page.
>And the 100,000 figures is quoted again on this page:
>http://www.met.police.uk/job/job917/live_files/1.htm
>
>> So, I guess those other reports are just...well, wrong.
>
>> Apologize NOW, please.
>
>Here are a few other 30,000 or 70,000 protester sources:
>http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/ck/Qbritain-us-bush-demos.RIrC_DNK.html
>
>http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200nationalnews/content_objectid=13645157_method=full_siteid=50002 _headline=-Bush-demo--largest-weekday-protest--name_page.html

I think that this sentence from this web site explains it:

"Scotland Yard said that at 4pm it estimated there were 30,000 on the
march, although it conceded that numbers had swelled since then".

So, instead of waiting on final word on the estimates, they took
preliminary estimates taken long before the protests ended (even
before the end of the working day). Not very good journalism, if you
ask me.

>http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031120-090511-8477r.htm

This figure claims 70,000 as well. That seems to have been also an
intermediate figure that was possibly pounced upon by US press sources
like AP eager to make next day deadlines. London based Reuters seemed
to be the ones who were prudent enough to wait until the final
estimates, although they tacked on an extra 10,000 for good measure.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031120/pl_nm/bush_britain_dc_61

>And the interesting thing is that all these various sources I've cited claim
>Scotland Yard as the source for those protester estimations.

Yeah, at 4pm.

>If any apologies are due, I believe it should be from Scotland Yard for
>giving out such widely disparate estimates of proster sizes.
>
>What do you think?

I simply think that you should just admit that you were mislead by 2nd
and 3rd hand sources who were quoting figures that fit their agendas.
Scotland Yard shouldn't be blamed to giving estimates throughout the
day. The blame falls on those journalists and wire services that
didn't update their stories.

[GeoSynch]

dave weil wrote:

> >Well, FrontPage is not any less credible than BBC or NY Times, IMO!

> The thing that you quoted wasn't even a "hard" news source. It was a
> right wing columist's column. and, frankly, you didn't even quote it
> correctly. Here's the first paragraph:

> ...Stop The War (STW) ... estimated 200,000 people took
> part in the rallies, Scotland Yard offered a more conservative
> estimate: _70,000_, just over one-third of STW's figure. Moreover
> .... even these numbers are artificially high".

Look again in the middle of the article, where it said:

"Stop The War estimated some 200,000 people took part in anti-American
demonstrations, many of them middle class. Official sources - those without
a partisan axe to grind - tell a different story. Scotland Yard estimated 70,000
people. However, London's Metropolitan Police figured the number of
participants at only 30,000, nearly none of whom were middle class."

> >FrontPage was the first place I encountered the 200,000 versus the
> >70,000 or 30,000 protester figures.

> And actually, you encountered the 70,000 figure but somehow
> misinterpreted it.

I interpreted the 100,000 and 70,000 as "politicized" figures and the
30,000 as the more accurate ones.

> >Here are a few other 30,000 or 70,000 protester sources:

> I think that this sentence from this web site explains it:

> "Scotland Yard said that at 4pm it estimated there were 30,000 on the
> march, although it conceded that numbers had swelled since then".

> So, instead of waiting on final word on the estimates, they took
> preliminary estimates taken long before the protests ended (even
> before the end of the working day). Not very good journalism, if you
> ask me.

Do you think the protester ranks "swelled" from 30,000 to 100,000
between 4 p.m. and the end of the night?

> >http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031120-090511-8477r.htm

> This figure claims 70,000 as well. That seems to have been also an
> intermediate figure that was possibly pounced upon by US press sources
> like AP eager to make next day deadlines. London based Reuters seemed
> to be the ones who were prudent enough to wait until the final
> estimates, although they tacked on an extra 10,000 for good measure.

> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031120/pl_nm/bush_britain_dc_61

Left-leaning Reuters doesn't cite the source of their 110,000 figures.

> >And the interesting thing is that all these various sources I've cited claim
> >Scotland Yard as the source for those protester estimations.

> Yeah, at 4pm.

> >If any apologies are due, I believe it should be from Scotland Yard for
> >giving out such widely disparate estimates of proster sizes.

> >What do you think?

> I simply think that you should just admit that you were mislead by 2nd
> and 3rd hand sources who were quoting figures that fit their agendas.
> Scotland Yard shouldn't be blamed to giving estimates throughout the
> day. The blame falls on those journalists and wire services that
> didn't update their stories.

The 100,000 figure is a "politicized" one.
The 70,000 figures seems artificially high from the 4 p.m. estimate.
The 30,000 figure is probably closer to the truth.


GeoSynch

[dave weil]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:47:58 GMT, "GeoSynch"
> wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>
>> >Well, FrontPage is not any less credible than BBC or NY Times, IMO!
>
>> The thing that you quoted wasn't even a "hard" news source. It was a
>> right wing columist's column. and, frankly, you didn't even quote it
>> correctly. Here's the first paragraph:
>
>> ...Stop The War (STW) ... estimated 200,000 people took
>> part in the rallies, Scotland Yard offered a more conservative
>> estimate: _70,000_, just over one-third of STW's figure. Moreover
>> .... even these numbers are artificially high".
>
>Look again in the middle of the article, where it said:
>
>"Stop The War estimated some 200,000 people took part in anti-American
>demonstrations, many of them middle class. Official sources - those without
>a partisan axe to grind - tell a different story. Scotland Yard estimated 70,000
>people. However, London's Metropolitan Police figured the number of
>participants at only 30,000, nearly none of whom were middle class."

And what does it tell you about the credibility of this particular
"columnist" when he doesn't know that the two entities are EXACTLY THE
SAME THING.

>> >FrontPage was the first place I encountered the 200,000 versus the
>> >70,000 or 30,000 protester figures.
>
>> And actually, you encountered the 70,000 figure but somehow
>> misinterpreted it.
>
>I interpreted the 100,000 and 70,000 as "politicized" figures and the
>30,000 as the more accurate ones.

Well then, you were wrong, because it's obvious that the "politicized"
figure was actually 30,000.

>> >Here are a few other 30,000 or 70,000 protester sources:
>
>> I think that this sentence from this web site explains it:
>
>> "Scotland Yard said that at 4pm it estimated there were 30,000 on the
>> march, although it conceded that numbers had swelled since then".
>
>> So, instead of waiting on final word on the estimates, they took
>> preliminary estimates taken long before the protests ended (even
>> before the end of the working day). Not very good journalism, if you
>> ask me.
>
>Do you think the protester ranks "swelled" from 30,000 to 100,000
>between 4 p.m. and the end of the night?

According to the Metropolitan Police (Scotland Yard), it did. You were
so quick to use them as the "official" source of the numbers, right?
What happened?

Yes, I can *easily* see a rally on a THURSDAY swell to such
proportions AFTER THE WORKING DAY WAS OVER.

>> >http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031120-090511-8477r.htm
>
>> This figure claims 70,000 as well. That seems to have been also an
>> intermediate figure that was possibly pounced upon by US press sources
>> like AP eager to make next day deadlines. London based Reuters seemed
>> to be the ones who were prudent enough to wait until the final
>> estimates, although they tacked on an extra 10,000 for good measure.
>
>> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031120/pl_nm/bush_britain_dc_61
>
>Left-leaning Reuters doesn't cite the source of their 110,000 figures.

Ahhhh, here we go with the politics again. You didn't bother to talk
about how RIGHT-WING your first and fourth source were. But still, I
think that they were a hell of a lot closer to the final total than
your 30,000/70,000 (take yer pick) sources were. But I made sure that
I mentioned the difference in figures.

And yet, here's a quote from Scotland Yard that says "more than
100,000"

Commander Mick Messinger, Gold for this event, said all security and
public order objectives were achieved.

More than 5,000 police officers and police staff were involved in
facilitating Thursday’s protests – the largest mid-week demonstration
in recent memory.

“The professionalism and dedication of our staff enabled more than
100,000 demonstrators to express their views in a safe way as well as
manage the demands of operating with an increased security threat.”

http://www.met.police.uk/job/job917/live_files/1.htm

So, I think that it's fair to tack on another 10,000 given this sort
of statement.

>> >And the interesting thing is that all these various sources I've cited claim
>> >Scotland Yard as the source for those protester estimations.
>
>> Yeah, at 4pm.
>
>> >If any apologies are due, I believe it should be from Scotland Yard for
>> >giving out such widely disparate estimates of proster sizes.
>
>> >What do you think?
>
>> I simply think that you should just admit that you were mislead by 2nd
>> and 3rd hand sources who were quoting figures that fit their agendas.
>> Scotland Yard shouldn't be blamed to giving estimates throughout the
>> day. The blame falls on those journalists and wire services that
>> didn't update their stories.
>
>The 100,000 figure is a "politicized" one.

No it's NOT. It's the official FINAL esitimate given by Scotland Yard,
at least on their web site.

>The 70,000 figures seems artificially high from the 4 p.m. estimate.

You are simply trying to make the facts fit your scenario (for
POLITICAL purposes I might add). It is very easy to see an additional
30,000 joining the rally even before 7pm once the working day is over.
London has about 300,000 workers in the City alone (the 1 square mile
area in the center of London where the rally was held). When you count
the additional likely 3-4 million workers in London proper, yes, I
think it's likely that another 30,000 might have shown up after 4pm.
Let's not forget that I'm getting my figure of 100,000 from what you
had previously considered an unpoliticized source (at least until the
number conflicted with your needs).

>The 30,000 figure is probably closer to the truth.

Are you disputing Scotland Yard now for your own political purposes,
or is it that you simply can't say, "My sources were premature and
ultimately wrong"?

[John Atkinson]

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
. net>...
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > I was in London last week and offical figures reported
> > by the Metropolitan police were either 70,000 or 100,000, depending
> > on the newspaper or radio station. No offial source reported 30,000.
>
> Hi John, it appears the 70,000 was the initial Scotland Yard estimate
> that was later reduced to 30,000.

Not according to what I had read. I don't where the 30,000 number came
from. The police were still clearing up the barriers last Sunday. If you
disregard the 200,000 and 30,000 claims as being equally illusionary,
there seems little reason to doubt the official 70,000-100,000 figure.

But what is not in doubt is that the President is deeply unpopular in the
UK. The left dislike him because of the war of course, the right because
of his back-pedalling on free trade, vide the US steel tariffs.

> What were you up to in London, might I ask?

Visiting family and working on a recording project.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[GeoSynch]

John Atkinson wrote:

> Not according to what I had read. I don't where the 30,000 number came
> from. The police were still clearing up the barriers last Sunday. If you
> disregard the 200,000 and 30,000 claims as being equally illusionary,
> there seems little reason to doubt the official 70,000-100,000 figure.

It may well have been 70,000 but it sure didn't look like it from the
various photos of the protesters I've seen on the news and the net.

> > What were you up to in London, might I ask?

> Visiting family and working on a recording project.

Is it like a top-secret project or something?
How 'bout a few details?


GeoSynch

[John Atkinson]

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
. net>...
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > If you disregard the 200,000 and 30,000 claims as being equally
> > illusionary, there seems little reason to doubt the official
> >70,000-100,000 figure.
>
> It may well have been 70,000 but it sure didn't look like it from the
> various photos of the protesters I've seen on the news and the net.

You're probably being misled by the pictures of empty streets. There were
more roads closed off in Central London than I can remember. I doubt if the
President got within a quarter-mile of anyone protesting. This is the link
to the website referring to the officla 1000,000 figure, BTW:
http://www.met.police.uk/job/job917/live_files/1.htm

> > > What were you up to in London, might I ask?
>
> > Visiting family and working on a recording project.
>
> Is it like a top-secret project or something?
> How 'bout a few details?

It's a little premature to talk about the project in any detail, but it
was classical and will, I hope, result in a hybrid SACD and LP release.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On 30 Nov 2003 14:59:13 -0800, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

a hybrid SACD and LP release.

Cool. Grooves on top and lasers below?

[George M. Middius]

Goofy said:

> > a hybrid SACD and LP release.

> Cool. Grooves on top and lasers below?

This kind of misconstruction ensues when one tosses a few too many
coins.

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:38:14 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Goofy said:
>
>> > a hybrid SACD and LP release.
>
>> Cool. Grooves on top and lasers below?
>
>This kind of misconstruction ensues when one tosses a few too many
>coins.
>

We won! We won! One is entitled to a bit of misconstruction.

[GeoSynch]

John Atkinson wrote:

> > > > What were you up to in London, might I ask?

> > > Visiting family and working on a recording project.

> > Is it like a top-secret project or something?
> > How 'bout a few details?

> It's a little premature to talk about the project in any detail, but it
> was classical and will, I hope, result in a hybrid SACD and LP release.

It sounds like a big production if it's going to be distributed on both
hybrid SACD and also LP, probably on 180 gm vinyl.


GeoSynch

[John Atkinson]

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
. net>...
> > It's a little premature to talk about the project in any detail, but it
> > was classical and will, I hope, result in a hybrid SACD and LP release.
>
> It sounds like a big production if it's going to be distributed on both
> hybrid SACD and also LP, probably on 180 gm vinyl.

Tony Faulkner was the engineer, recording in analog for the first time
in 20 years for the LP release. He also recorded in DSD for the SACD
release, using a Genex hard disk recorder (backed up on DVD-RAM) with
a 192kHz PCM version recorded on a TASCAM MDM. I was producing.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[GeoSynch]

John Atkinson wrote:

> > > It's a little premature to talk about the project in any detail, but it
> > > was classical and will, I hope, result in a hybrid SACD and LP release.

> > It sounds like a big production if it's going to be distributed on both
> > hybrid SACD and also LP, probably on 180 gm vinyl.

> Tony Faulkner was the engineer, recording in analog for the first time
> in 20 years for the LP release. He also recorded in DSD for the SACD
> release, using a Genex hard disk recorder (backed up on DVD-RAM) with
> a 192kHz PCM version recorded on a TASCAM MDM. I was producing.

Quite an impressive inventory of equipment Tony's got:
http://www.auracle.com/greenroom/files/kit.html

Is the project listed here yet?
http://www.auracle.com/greenroom/files/recrec.html


GeoSynch