On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 23:51:13 GMT, TheGratefulDead
<thegratefuldead@your.house> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 06:55:00 GMT, TheGratefulDead
>><thegratefuldead@your.house> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 05:41:24 GMT, TheGratefulDead
>>>><thegratefuldead@your.house> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>Way I see it, WS told Count Draculol, and the game was afoot.
>>>
>>>Ummmm, you have lost me with this one. "game was afoot"??
>>>Are you saying they all were running from me?
>>
>>No. If, as I know for a fact, a certain Wild bird told WS that what
>>was dead, wasn't, then if only stands to reason that WS told Drac, and
>>then Drac alerted other's.
>>It's hard to prove because they all are pretty big on PGP'ing stuff.
>
>Oh well, who gives a shit anyway.
Agreed.
>>>>>>>>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>
>>>>
>>>>Here's what I have found out in the last day since Aub upped it for
>>>>me:
>>>>The program, which I am posting for you, works by right clicking on
>>>>the fish box, and from there you can set it up how you want it.
>>>>It won't work if you rip an MP3 file, but, if you rip in .wav format,
>>>>and then drag and drop that file into the fish box, it automatically
>>>>converts the .wav file into an .ogg file.
>>>>Now, the oggs are supposedly readily played with Winamp, but so far, I
>>>>have had to take the posted .ogg files, and "drop" them into the fish
>>>>box, and then, when the program converts it into a sound file, I can
>>>>launch it with my stand alone MP3 player, Music Match JukeBox.
>>>>My tests show that the same file, MP3 versus .ogg. is about 1/3 the
>>>>size.
>>>>That's a helluva savings, and the quality is supposedly better with
>>>>.ogg.
>>>>
>>>>Lemme know what you think, OK?
>>>>
>>>So, your saying that I rip to .wav with Audiograbber, then drop a
>>>.wav file into this proggie? Interesting, I'll give it a try. Thanks.
>>
>>Yes, that is exactly what I figured out.
>>I ripped an MP3 but the fish said, "unsupported file type," and then I
>>ripped a file into a .wav file, and the fish ate it up very nicely,
>>and burped out an .ogg file.
>>The difference in size, with no loss of quality was amazing.
>>The .ogg was tiny in comparison to the MP3, and equally slim when
>>stacked up against the .wav file.
>>Then I upped all three of them to Aub's binary group,
>>*alt.binaries.aubergine*, and as you might expect the upping times
>>were indicative of the file size differences.
>>The MP3 took 18 minutes, the .wav a tad longer, whereas the .ogg took
>>2 minutes!
>>
>>I then DL'd all 3 files, again with significant time differences, and
>>while I had to "drop" the .ogg file into the fish so that a useable
>>file could be produced, it didn't take an appreciable amount of time.
>>The quality was, to my untrained ear, the same for all 3.
>>Now, supposedly, if I were using Winamp, as opposed to Music Match
>>Jukebox, I wouldn't have needed to convert the .ogg file because
>>Winamp plays them just fine.
>>
>Hell, I ripped one song from a CD with Audiograbber. It will rip to
>the .ogg format. I got a free player here http://snackamp.sourceforge.net/
>I didn't see that much of size difference between .ogg and .mp3. The
>.mp3 is 2.60meg and the .ogg is 2.20meg. The quality is good.
Interesting. I wonder why the .ogg wasn't smaller?
Hmmmm... mine was 1/3 the size of the MP3 file.
Maybe ripping to .ogg is somehow different than converting it from
.wav to .ogg.
Oh well, at least it is something new to play with, and it is "open
source" so it should improve over time.
BTW, guy named Beaver was lamenting the fact that Tat had expired
because he wanted some help with video rips, so I told him that a guy
named GreatfulDead knew almost as much, and told him to come here.
Just letting you know.
Thanks for the link!
--
A dunce for all seasons.
Founder & President, *Dunce of the Month Club*
Coordinator, *Yaks for the Yakless, International*
Voted *Usenets Most Trusted Person In History*, 1956 -2004.
Quote: "I have never met a dunce I've liked!"
---------
The preceding post was scanned for signs of
FAILED
-----------------
broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written
|
|