1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

Two things here.

It is difficult for our amateur church recordist to
come to terms with the fact that there are people
out there who do the job professionally (with formal
training and a lifetime of experience far greater than
his own) and that his church activities are worlds away
from "real" professional commercial recording.

Iain is impossible to convince that volunteer work is
only part of what I do in professional audio.

So what work in 'professional audio' do you do or have
you done?

Asked and answered. But to remind those with impaired memories I'll remind
you that I do a goodly number of band and choir festival recordings for
educational institutions.

Perhaps if you make it crystal clear Iain will be
convinced...??

Iain reads what he wants to read. Because some major US cities have serious
problems with education and even basic things like literacy, he fantasizes
that the whole country is a bunch of illiterates. He forgets that
Scandanavia was unable to defend itself successfully against the Nazis and
the Communists in WW2. The US used the UK as a proxy to kick their butts.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Perhaps Arny is referring to the schools' music festivals,
about which he made such a song and dance over on RAO.
It turned out that he recorded something like ten
esembles an hour - no rehearsals, no editing.

Shows again that the truth and Iain are strangers.

Professional? Err.... 'Nuff said:-)

At this time Iain's professional work pales in comparison. In all time Iain
never actually did all of the work it takes to bring a recording from
performance to its market.

His silly claims above are sour grapes, and nothing better.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Keith G" wrote in message


If Arny has experience of the *professional audio* world
it shouldn't be to hard to list it.

Keith if you weren't suffering from memory loss, you'd know better.

(Unpaid, volunteer work doesn't count.)

Its the quality of work that makes it professional, not the size of the cash
renumeration.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote

. He forgets that Scandanavia was unable to defend itself successfully
against the Nazis and the Communists in WW2. The US used the UK as a proxy
to kick their butts.

Without in any way wishing to defend or support Iain's comments, I must say
that above paragraph appears to be based on ignorance and prejudice, rather
than any actual understanding of the history of WW2.

David.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote

. He forgets that Scandanavia was unable to defend
itself successfully against the Nazis and the Communists
in WW2. The US used the UK as a proxy to kick their
butts.

Without in any way wishing to defend or support Iain's
comments, I must say that above paragraph appears to be
based on ignorance and prejudice, rather than any actual
understanding of the history of WW2.

UK chauvinsm noted.

Churchill sold the UK to Roosevelt as the largest aircraft carrier in the
world, and stood behind it. A brilliant idea.

If it wasn't for the US, the number of people in the world speaking German
would be vastly increased. Yah vol? ;-)

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
My guess is 'analogue' to Keith is purely vinyl.


Nope. Holds up for TV, radio, watches, photography, some meters &c. but
I can't ignore the 'cheap, quick and convenient' aspects of digital
photography and sound recording which are both good enough for my
purposes.


You couldn't be more wrong.

Of course some implementations of 'digital' may be way less than perfect
for commercial reasons - but that is a different ball game.

You seem to confuse pretty looking but flawed analogue devices with
performance - or more like your own personal preferences. And we all know
about those...

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote

. He forgets that Scandanavia was unable to defend
itself successfully against the Nazis and the Communists
in WW2. The US used the UK as a proxy to kick their
butts.

Without in any way wishing to defend or support Iain's
comments, I must say that above paragraph appears to be
based on ignorance and prejudice, rather than any actual
understanding of the history of WW2.

UK chauvinsm noted.

Since I did not refer to the UK or it's role in WW2 in any way in my post
*that* comment shows how little you care about truth.

Churchill sold the UK to Roosevelt as the largest aircraft carrier in the
world, and stood behind it. A brilliant idea.

If it wasn't for the US, the number of people in the world speaking German
would be vastly increased. Yah vol? ;-)

We cannot know for certain how history would have panned out since 1940 had
the US not become involved in the European theatre during WW2. Certainly
Russia (with a good deal of help from the weather and Hitler's own egomania,
but little from the Western allies) was able to stop, and then reverse,
Hitler's eastern expansion. One probable scenario is that most of Europe
would have ended up under Soviet, rather than German, domination.

Either way, though, the suggestion that German occupied countries would now
be speaking German is, of course, ridiculous.

David.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Churchill sold the UK to Roosevelt as the largest aircraft carrier in
the world, and stood behind it. A brilliant idea.

That suggests money flowed from the US to the UK. Whilst this was true in
the short term, the US made a *very* large profit out of anything supplied
to the UK, when the final sums were done.

The US also waited until well after the Battle of Britain before joining
in. Makes sense to be on the winning side, I suppose. But were very sadly
missing at the times of true peril. Like when there was a very real danger
of the UK being invaded.

--
*Xerox and Wurlitzer will merge to market reproductive organs.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote

. He forgets that Scandanavia was unable to defend
itself successfully against the Nazis and the
Communists in WW2. The US used the UK as a proxy to
kick their butts.

Without in any way wishing to defend or support Iain's
comments, I must say that above paragraph appears to be
based on ignorance and prejudice, rather than any actual
understanding of the history of WW2.

UK chauvinsm noted.

Since I did not refer to the UK or it's role in WW2 in
any way in my post *that* comment shows how little you
care about truth.

Churchill sold the UK to Roosevelt as the largest
aircraft carrier in the world, and stood behind it. A
brilliant idea. If it wasn't for the US, the number of people in the
world speaking German would be vastly increased. Yah
vol? ;-)

We cannot know for certain how history would have panned
out since 1940 had the US not become involved in the
European theatre during WW2.

That's a truism that can be applied to just about anything that happened or
didn't happen in history.

Take out the "for sure" and at least you have a possibility of a discussion.

Here are the facts:

A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $759 billion at 2008 prices) worth
of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the
Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6 billion to China.

The $31.4 billion in US direct aid was about 15% of the UK's annual GNP at
that time. However, the US provided far more than just direct aid. We had
100.000s of troops on the ground in the UK until most of them left to tour
europe.

Certainly Russia (with a
good deal of help from the weather and Hitler's own
egomania, but little from the Western allies) was able to
stop, and then reverse, Hitler's eastern expansion.

The $11.3 billion in US direct aid to the Soviet Union was about 4% of the
USSR's annual GNP at that time.

One probable scenario is that most of Europe would have ended
up under Soviet, rather than German, domination.

Either way, though, the suggestion that German occupied
countries would now be speaking German is, of course,
ridiculous.

Not at all. Had Germany not ever attacked Russia (really stupid and
arrogant) and the US not helped the UK (a very smart move on our part), its
pretty much a slam dunk: You're all talking German.

By 1944 the US production of munitions pretty well matched that of all the
other parties to the war combined including Germany. Leave out Germany and
we were marching up on doubling that of all the other allies combined.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article
, Arny
Krueger wrote:
Churchill sold the UK to Roosevelt as the largest
aircraft carrier in the world, and stood behind it. A
brilliant idea.

That suggests money flowed from the US to the UK. Whilst
this was true in the short term, the US made a *very*
large profit out of anything supplied to the UK, when the
final sums were done.

The US also waited until well after the Battle of Britain
before joining in. Makes sense to be on the winning side,
I suppose. But were very sadly missing at the times of
true peril. Like when there was a very real danger of the
UK being invaded.

The US had a serious problem with pacifism at the time. Or, perhaps many
people anticipated how little our massive efforts would be appreciated once
the war was won. I have to admit that I am impressed with the UK's efforts
which percentage-wise dwarfed ours.