>On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 03:28:27 GMT, TheGratefulDead
><thegratefuldead@your.house> wrote:
>
>>
>>>On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 02:01:32 GMT, TheGratefulDead
>>><thegratefuldead@your.house> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 03:39:59 GMT, TheGratefulDead
>>>>><thegratefuldead@your.house> wrote:
>>>>>
>>
>> <Big Sniperoo>
>>
>>>>>>Well, Tat was/is fighting lung cancer, you know.
>>>>>
>>>>>I know, I know, but I hated to discover that I gave money away under
>>>>>"those" circumstances. I felt tricked and hoaxed.
>>>>
>>>>You were indeed, however, I had no control over the situation.
>>>
>>>>>No big deal but FWIW, I still feel that a full disclosure should be
>>>>>made so that people are aware of the shameless trickery.
>>>>
>>>>If you want to make full disclosure, then make it. Like I said, I had
>>>>no control of the situation, and besides that, I have lost my Usenet
>>>>identity that I had for years. We all have suffered a loss in some way.
>>>
>>>I never said you were involved in the hoax, didn't even mean to imply
>>>that. I have a pretty good idea of what happened, and why, but why
>>>that means that you need to lose your nic is beyond me. Then again, I
>>>have never been very bright.
>>
>>Because noone would believe it's me. Then when I would say yes, it is me,
>>then I would be asked to explain myself. Then I would tell them to get fucked.
>>My real life personal problems is none of their business. So, it's best to
>>leave it the way it is.
>
>I understand.
Kewl
>>>FTR, I have tried to alert a couple of people, in a very roundabout
>>>fashion, that all my not be as it seems, but it's hard to do without
>>>coming right out and saying it, but now that you have given me
>>>permission to do so, I will, at the proper time and place.
>>
>>That's fine with me, however, i'm not going to explain myself to anyone.
>>In another group, Arch Stanton wanted me to explain myself and I more
>>or less told him, if he didn't like it, he could lump it. I guess he didn't
>>like it because I haven't heard from him since. That's all well and good.
>>All he is is a screen name anyway, so fuck him.
>
>Again, I understand. (That's a record, BTW), and that's why I am only
Double kewl. <s>
>going to alert a couple of people.
>I have pieced together that many of the camille ilk already know, and
>that's no big deal to me.
>Like you say, we are all just screen names, mostly.<s>
No, I don't think that most of them know, unless Woodstock told them, and
noone has challenged my negative posts in camille about spidey collecting
PGP keys.
>>>Let me know if and when you want the MP3's, and should you get the
>>>chance, I wouldn't mind having that *Surrealistic Pillow.*
>>>TIA
>>>
>>It seems that "surrealistic Pillow" was a casualty. I can't even find
>>my vinyl record of it. Sorry!
>
>Fucking story of my life.<s>
>In any event, as this wasn't a "I'll trade you... for a copy of..."
>type deal, whatever CD's I have are yours.
I'll let ya noe when i'm ready. I'm still working in the 50s and 60s groups.
I appreciate the offer.
>BTW, the wayward veggie, Aub, has just turned me onto a thing called
>the .ogg format for music files.
>You familiar with that?
>Only works on .wav files, or something like them, and reduces the file
>size by 1/3, without loss of quality.
>Very Interesting.
>
Yeah, that's Ogg Vorbis format. I don't know much about it, but I
read that it's pretty good. You need a special player for those
files, if i'm not mistaken. I need to do some more research on it.
I think that the .ogg format will be the yEnc of music files. I can
see the bitching in the groups now. <G>
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
|