Re: Asimov helps users and battles piracy!

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Todd P. Whitesel writes ...
> 
> Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> writes:
> 
> >     You must admit that the above does not exactly respond to the
> >quoted observation: i.e. that, whatever the history of the file, it may
> >well, as claimed, have contained 4D elements.
> 
> Eh? If I can trace the history back to someone who claims no special
> processing, that's good enough for me. Stuff like "ambisonic" elements
> has to be put there -- it doesn't just occur by accident.

     The BBC was experimenting with ambisonics years ago. No doubt, so
were recording studios. It would not be at all surprising that a label
would omit claims of "ambisonic processing", etc.. For years, such
claims were equated with "fake stereo".

     Basically, you appear to be saying that you honestly do not know
for a fact that the original sample did not contain ambisonic elements.


 ....

> >     Just the fact that three or four persons have no better use for
> >their time and web site resources than to devote them to attacking a
> >single individual tells us a great deal about what to expect. Putting it
> >kindly, these persons are not 'playing with a full deck'. It is
> >impossible to accept any information from such persons as valid. It is,
> >in fact, impossible to believe anything they say.
>

 
> Just the fact that Dr. Tom at one time had no better use for his time and
> web site resources than to devote them to attacking a single individual
> (various individuals at various times, actually) also tells us a great
> deal about what to expect. Putting it kindly, that person had not been
> 'playing with a full deck'. etc. I think you get the idea.
>

     Yes. You find fault with Dr. Tom's reaction to being attacked. Too
bad.

     If any counter-attack material remains on Dr. Tom's site, it seems
to be minimal or buried in some folder. The GS WorldView site today
continues to be a major Apple II information resource.

     In any case, there is really no need to bother with descriptions.
it is easy enough for anyone to visit the GS WorldView web site, visit
the Anti-Dr. Tom web sites, and decide for him/her self.


 
> >     If, at any time, any of these persons or known associates were
> >involved in obtaining, transferring, processing, evaluating, touching,
> >or looking at any of your samples, you can save youself a lot of bother
> >and trash them.
> 
> Once again, the same could be turned around and used by one who was once
> flamed by Dr. Tom, or more appropriate to this discussion, flamed by you
> -- e.g. Nathan.

 ....

     Lies, slander, and other bad stuff is _supposed_ to be corrected.
What you call "flaming" is, 99% of the time, merely a back-fire.



Rubywand