1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

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

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

One day Joe Ordinaire will wake up to the fact that
'digital' has done him no real favours - especially
when it comes to music.

That comment simply says you have no grasp of the
issues.

Totally agreed. Joe Oridinaire wants to listen to music,
not obsess over the means for doing so.

Huh? Are you saying iPod users don't care about their
iPods?

Joe Oridinaire doesn't buy iPods. IPods are a premium product.


Kids own iPods in the UK.



The real value of any music playback system lies in the
enjoyment it brings from providing pleasureable music to
listen to.

Not true for all 'audiophiles'....

Audiophiles are nuts, according to Joe Oridinaire


Every 'hifi buff' gets a zing from using their kit to some extent -
especially if it's kit they have built/fettled.




The most prized lasting value comes from the music, not
the media or the hardware for playing it back.

Not true for all 'audiophiles'....

Audiophiles are shacked out, according to Joe Oridinaire



Not 'shacked up'?




Digital recording made a huge difference to vinyl - for
a start. Ended the need for direct cut recordings where
the very best results were required.

Digital generally provided better sound quality that
actually lasted past a few playings.

Not true for all 'audiophiles'....

Not all audiophiles are vinylphiles. In fact very few of them could care
less about vinyl.


Not all vinylphiles are audiophiles.




Like in photography these days, you can 'Photoshop' any
crap into some semblance of respectability?

Kieth proves himself to be the same out-of-touch pseudo
elitist we've always known.

Arny proves that once outside his Comfort Zone he has no
idea about anything much.

Well Keithe, you'ev always been a sucker for very weak proof.


I don't think so - got any examples?

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

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

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:

Certainly had Germany not attacked Russia it could have
consolidated it's position within Europe. But then it was
Russia that Hitler had his eyes on right from the start. But had the
invasion of Russia gone ahead as it did, but
the US not enter the European war, it's likely that the
European war would have become a straight fight between
Germany and the Soviet Union, and my money's on the
Soviet Union winning (though not without an even more
protracted and bloody conflict than we actually had).

History shows that Stalin had pretty well kicked Hitler's butt before
D-Day.

Indeed, which is why I argue that in a straight war between Nazi Germany and
the Soviet union the Soviet Union would have won.

Stalin probably wouldn't have been able to roll across the border into
Berlin as easily as he did without us applying unbearable pressure to
Hitler's Western front.

Which is why I suggested that without Hitler having to fight on two fronts
at the same time the war would have lasted longer and been even more bloody.

Without US support it's likely that Britain would have
been starved into signing a separate peace with Germany,
though I doubt that Hitler would have risked a second
attempt at invasion, not after his defeat in 1940 and
with his troops tied up in the east.

Kery words being "Troops being tied up in the east".

You're all talking German.

Did the populations of Eastern European countries all
speak Russian between 1945 and 1989?

Hitler and Stalin were 2 vastly different people.

True, so?

So why would the
populations of any European country (other than those
that have always spoken German) have adopted German had
they remained under German control?

Stalin was not nearly as much into the master race thing as Hitler was.

Again true. But the implication of what you are saying is bizarre. So let me
ask, did the populations of the occupied countries of Europe such as France
and Norway speak German during the war? was there any suggestion that they
should?, was there any suggestion that Hitler wanted them to? The answer,
BTW, Is NO to all three.

Even had this been Hitler's wish (and there's zero evidence that it was) how
easy do you think it would have been for the Germans to impose their
language on unwilling subject people? What we actually had, both in the
German occupied countries during the way, and in Eastern Europe after it,
was a series of puppet governments each running their own county and with a
measure of autonomy (including matters such as language) but all subservient
to the "Imperial Capital" in Berlin or Moscow.

You seem obsessed by munitions production and money. Did
not the US defeat in Vietnam demonstrate that such things
are not always the critical factors in winning wars?

Vietnam was a completely different thing than WW2. There was never a
question of Vietnam being a "total war" like WW2 was.

It was about as total as successive US governments could make it, short of
using nuclear weapons. And the nuclear option was out of the question
because of the reaction there would have been both from the US people and
internationally. The Vietnam war did plenty of damage to America's
international reputation as it was. The US could not afford the far more
serious damage that using nukes against a country that was no threat to the
US would have caused.

The rules of engagement were completly different abnd very restrained.

Very restrained? oh please!

History shows that we still ended up bombing Vietnam into the stone age
even though we never dropped nukes.

And that's your idea of "very restrained" is it?

That was probably an unintended consequence.

Maybe, or maybe it was a war aim of the US government.

The real lesson of the Vietnam war is that a conscript army composed of
people who do not wish to fight and have no personal interest in the outcome
of the war struggles to defeat an army of people defending their homeland
against a foreign invader, even if far better supplied and equipped.

David.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"David Looser" wrote in
message

Again true. But the implication of what you are saying is
bizarre. So let me ask, did the populations of the
occupied countries of Europe such as France and Norway
speak German during the war?

Irrelevant because the occupation governments were not Hitler's final
solution.

was there any suggestion that they should?, was there any suggestion that
Hitler
wanted them to? The answer, BTW, Is NO to all three.

That's your answer. Cites?

Even had this been Hitler's wish (and there's zero
evidence that it was) how easy do you think it would have
been for the Germans to impose their language on
unwilling subject people?

Check out the Phillipines.

http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/reso...y-profile.html

"English is generally used for educational, governmental and commercial
purposes and is widely understood since it is the medium of instruction in
schools. The Philippines are the third largest group of English speaking
people in the world, after the United States and the United Kingdom."

What we actually had, both in
the German occupied countries during the way, and in
Eastern Europe after it, was a series of puppet
governments each running their own county and with a
measure of autonomy (including matters such as language)
but all subservient to the "Imperial Capital" in Berlin
or Moscow.

Agreed - but this was not Hitler's final solution. Mein Kampf describes
total social re-engineering of the world.

You seem obsessed by munitions production and money. Did
not the US defeat in Vietnam demonstrate that such
things are not always the critical factors in winning wars?

As it has been said: "Amateurs worry about strategy and professionals worry
about logistics". Logistics in war is of course about the delivery of
munitions and food, etc.. Remember Napolean's march to and from Russia?

Vietnam was a completely different thing than WW2. There
was never a question of Vietnam being a "total war" like
WW2 was.

It was about as total as successive US governments could
make it, short of using nuclear weapons.

Yup, that's why there was almost a mutiny among US soldiers particularly
pilots, over overly-restrictive and even idiotic "Rules of engagment". They
were handed down at times, directly from the desk of the President - namely
Lyndon Johnson. He was said to be in total control of detailed targeting
much of the time that he was in office.

From the Korean war we knew that if we beat up North Vietnam too badly we'd
have a jillion chinese on our front steps down in Saigon.

The same amount of bombs could have been delivered with far worse effects.
This was proven later, from time to time during the Nixon years. I believe
Henry Kissinger was the micro-manager in charge. But even under Nixon we
mostly pulled our punches and held back our most agressive moves. China was
still a threat. The troops were very constrained by top leadership both on
the ground and in the air. It was very frustrating for the soldiers but it
may have saved many of their lives.

The U.S. has never enaged in anything like total war since WW2.

Not using nukes serves our own purposes, because within a week, fallout from
anyplace falls on us. We knew this because of the effects of Russia's
nuclear tests on the US. Widespread use of nukes backfires pretty quickly
and doesn't go away soon.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

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

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

One day Joe Ordinaire will wake up to the fact that
'digital' has done him no real favours - especially
when it comes to music.

That comment simply says you have no grasp of the
issues.

Totally agreed. Joe Oridinaire wants to listen to
music, not obsess over the means for doing so.

Huh? Are you saying iPod users don't care about their
iPods?

Joe Ordinaire doesn't buy iPods. IPods are a premium
product.

Kids own iPods in the UK.

Ditto in the US.

However, the really cool kids play their music on their phones and tablets.

The real value of any music playback system lies in the
enjoyment it brings from providing pleasureable music
to listen to.

Not true for all 'audiophiles'....

Audiophiles are nuts, according to Joe Oridinaire

Every 'hifi buff' gets a zing from using their kit to
some extent - especially if it's kit they have
built/fettled.

Irrelevant answer.

Read the letters in response to this article:

http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+...-bad-for-users

The most prized lasting value comes from the music, not
the media or the hardware for playing it back.

Not true for all 'audiophiles'....

Audiophiles are shacked out, according to Joe Oridinaire

Not 'shacked up'?

Typo, my apolgies.

Whacked out.

Digital recording made a huge difference to vinyl -
for a start. Ended the need for direct cut
recordings where the very best results were required.

Digital generally provided better sound quality that
actually lasted past a few playings.

Not true for all 'audiophiles'....

Not all audiophiles are vinylphiles. In fact very few of
them could care less about vinyl.

Not all vinylphiles are audiophiles.

Irreelvant.

Like in photography these days, you can 'Photoshop'
any crap into some semblance of respectability?

Kieth proves himself to be the same out-of-touch pseudo
elitist we've always known.

Arny proves that once outside his Comfort Zone he has no
idea about anything much.

Well Keith, you'ev always been a sucker for very weak
proof.

I don't think so - got any examples?

A number are already mentioned in this post.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

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

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

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

One day Joe Ordinaire will wake up to the fact that
'digital' has done him no real favours - especially
when it comes to music.

That comment simply says you have no grasp of the
issues.

Totally agreed. Joe Oridinaire wants to listen to
music, not obsess over the means for doing so.

Huh? Are you saying iPod users don't care about their
iPods?

Joe Ordinaire doesn't buy iPods. IPods are a premium
product.

Kids own iPods in the UK.

Ditto in the US.

However, the really cool kids play their music on their phones and
tablets.


Ditto in the UK but less so atm - from what I can gather.



The real value of any music playback system lies in the
enjoyment it brings from providing pleasureable music
to listen to.

Not true for all 'audiophiles'....

Audiophiles are nuts, according to Joe Oridinaire

Every 'hifi buff' gets a zing from using their kit to
some extent - especially if it's kit they have
built/fettled.

Irrelevant answer.

Read the letters in response to this article:

http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+...-bad-for-users

The most prized lasting value comes from the music, not
the media or the hardware for playing it back.

Not true for all 'audiophiles'....

Audiophiles are shacked out, according to Joe Oridinaire

Not 'shacked up'?

Typo, my apolgies.

Whacked out.

Digital recording made a huge difference to vinyl -
for a start. Ended the need for direct cut
recordings where the very best results were required.

Digital generally provided better sound quality that
actually lasted past a few playings.

Not true for all 'audiophiles'....

Not all audiophiles are vinylphiles. In fact very few of
them could care less about vinyl.

Not all vinylphiles are audiophiles.

Irreelvant.

Like in photography these days, you can 'Photoshop'
any crap into some semblance of respectability?

Kieth proves himself to be the same out-of-touch pseudo
elitist we've always known.

Arny proves that once outside his Comfort Zone he has no
idea about anything much.

Well Keith, you'ev always been a sucker for very weak
proof.

I don't think so - got any examples?

A number are already mentioned in this post.


Irrelevant.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

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

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:

Certainly had Germany not attacked Russia it could have
consolidated it's position within Europe. But then it was
Russia that Hitler had his eyes on right from the start. But had the
invasion of Russia gone ahead as it did, but
the US not enter the European war, it's likely that the
European war would have become a straight fight between
Germany and the Soviet Union, and my money's on the
Soviet Union winning (though not without an even more
protracted and bloody conflict than we actually had).

History shows that Stalin had pretty well kicked Hitler's butt before
D-Day.

Indeed, which is why I argue that in a straight war between Nazi Germany
and
the Soviet union the Soviet Union would have won.

Stalin probably wouldn't have been able to roll across the border into
Berlin as easily as he did without us applying unbearable pressure to
Hitler's Western front.

Which is why I suggested that without Hitler having to fight on two fronts
at the same time the war would have lasted longer and been even more
bloody.

Without US support it's likely that Britain would have
been starved into signing a separate peace with Germany,
though I doubt that Hitler would have risked a second
attempt at invasion, not after his defeat in 1940 and
with his troops tied up in the east.

Kery words being "Troops being tied up in the east".

You're all talking German.

Did the populations of Eastern European countries all
speak Russian between 1945 and 1989?

Hitler and Stalin were 2 vastly different people.

True, so?

So why would the
populations of any European country (other than those
that have always spoken German) have adopted German had
they remained under German control?

Stalin was not nearly as much into the master race thing as Hitler was.

Again true. But the implication of what you are saying is bizarre. So let
me
ask, did the populations of the occupied countries of Europe such as
France
and Norway speak German during the war? was there any suggestion that they
should?, was there any suggestion that Hitler wanted them to? The answer,
BTW, Is NO to all three.

Even had this been Hitler's wish (and there's zero evidence that it was)
how easy do you think it would have been for the Germans to impose their
language on unwilling subject people? What we actually had, both in the
German occupied countries during the way, and in Eastern Europe after it,
was a series of puppet governments each running their own county and with
a measure of autonomy (including matters such as language) but all
subservient to the "Imperial Capital" in Berlin or Moscow.

You seem obsessed by munitions production and money. Did
not the US defeat in Vietnam demonstrate that such things
are not always the critical factors in winning wars?

Vietnam was a completely different thing than WW2. There was never a
question of Vietnam being a "total war" like WW2 was.

It was about as total as successive US governments could make it, short of
using nuclear weapons. And the nuclear option was out of the question
because of the reaction there would have been both from the US people and
internationally. The Vietnam war did plenty of damage to America's
international reputation as it was. The US could not afford the far more
serious damage that using nukes against a country that was no threat to
the US would have caused.

The rules of engagement were completly different abnd very restrained.

Very restrained? oh please!

History shows that we still ended up bombing Vietnam into the stone age
even though we never dropped nukes.

And that's your idea of "very restrained" is it?

That was probably an unintended consequence.

Maybe, or maybe it was a war aim of the US government.

The real lesson of the Vietnam war is that a conscript army composed of
people who do not wish to fight and have no personal interest in the
outcome of the war struggles to defeat an army of people defending their
homeland against a foreign invader, even if far better supplied and
equipped.


Country Joe And The Fish ended the Vietnam War....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7Y0ekr-3So&feature=fvst

:-)

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"David Looser" wrote in
message

The real lesson of the Vietnam war is that a conscript
army composed of people who do not wish to fight and have
no personal interest in the outcome of the war struggles
to defeat an army of people defending their homeland
against a foreign invader, even if far better supplied
and equipped.

Ironic that we didn't take that to heart when we freed ourself from a tyrant
named George by exactly that means.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

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

The real lesson of the Vietnam war is that a conscript
army composed of people who do not wish to fight and have
no personal interest in the outcome of the war struggles
to defeat an army of people defending their homeland
against a foreign invader, even if far better supplied
and equipped.

Ironic that we didn't take that to heart when we freed ourself from a
tyrant named George by exactly that means.

Yes, isn't it?

Though I question your use of "we". Judging by your name I doubt that your
ancestors were any part of freeing anyone from a" tyrant named George".

Another point you've missed: the Americans who "freed themselves from a
tyrant named George" were every bit as much foreign invaders as the forces
they defeated, the native Americans never got their country back.

Oh, and George wasn't a tyrant, he was a constitutional monarch. Absolute
monarchy had ended with the English Civil war.

David.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:48:47 -0000, "David Looser"
wrote:

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

The real lesson of the Vietnam war is that a conscript
army composed of people who do not wish to fight and have
no personal interest in the outcome of the war struggles
to defeat an army of people defending their homeland
against a foreign invader, even if far better supplied
and equipped.

Ironic that we didn't take that to heart when we freed ourself from a
tyrant named George by exactly that means.

Yes, isn't it?

Though I question your use of "we". Judging by your name I doubt that your
ancestors were any part of freeing anyone from a" tyrant named George".

Another point you've missed: the Americans who "freed themselves from a
tyrant named George" were every bit as much foreign invaders as the forces
they defeated, the native Americans never got their country back.

Oh, and George wasn't a tyrant, he was a constitutional monarch. Absolute
monarchy had ended with the English Civil war.

David.


And of course he has no right to claim "we" anyway. His state was not
one of the thirteen colonies that broke away.

d

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

On 24/02/2011 22:48, David Looser wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in
message

The real lesson of the Vietnam war is that a conscript
army composed of people who do not wish to fight and have
no personal interest in the outcome of the war struggles
to defeat an army of people defending their homeland
against a foreign invader, even if far better supplied
and equipped.
Ironic that we didn't take that to heart when we freed ourself from a
tyrant named George by exactly that means.

Yes, isn't it?

Though I question your use of "we". Judging by your name I doubt that your
ancestors were any part of freeing anyone from a" tyrant named George".

Another point you've missed: the Americans who "freed themselves from a
tyrant named George" were every bit as much foreign invaders as the forces
they defeated, the native Americans never got their country back.

Oh, and George wasn't a tyrant, he was a constitutional monarch. Absolute
monarchy had ended with the English Civil war.

ITYM the Glorious Revolution.

--
Eiron.