What's new

The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Yes, I understand now that you wrote it and not Smila. I apologize to Smila. For you, Mr. Nobody, you once again prove how accurately your screen name was chosen.

A person could write, "I belong to a group of people who love black and white movies better than technicolor movies; we feel black and white movies seem to be able to convey the darker human emotions better."

You might then respond, "I watched a movie in black and white and then watched the same movie in color and I did not feel that the black and white version conveyed any of the human emotions better. "Any such beliefs are just voodoo and nobody really believes them."

Your first sentence would be an honest opinion but your second sentence takes a quantum leap which renders your entire post worthless.
Lakey

:confused2:

Sounds like somebody woke up in a tad of a foul mood today........Dang !

Dude, get a donut or two ................ & chill ! :thumbsup:

Or did we just get the most erudite post of the thread ?

:roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysterical:
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Talking about humor - since I have grown to like the russian/east-european soul, I'll post this video especially for Lakey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmu9bSLD9jk

Let's see if he thinks this would bring more smiles if played @ 432 Hz. Because, yaknow, I could easily convert it. ;)

Anyway, although I'm more of a Jazz/Blues musician than anything else, this one put a smile on my face. Can it put one on Lakey's? I hope so, but if not, then meh. ;)

Unfortunately, you very very funny & most enjoyable post ( I played it 3 times ) apparently did not put a smile on Lakey's face. You might have to settle for the rest of us getting belly laughs from it.

This 432 / 440 business is pretty interesting. First it was middle C@ 440 then it shifted to A ( That is a a tonal shift my froiends ! ).

Then we had to work through a single tone can n ot be discordant with itself.

And we had to sort out telephone ringers determined pitch a few hundred years before telephone

Oh, nevermindm......I think I'll go toke a J & see if this stuff can fit together... or not.

Oh, I have a serious question : Can I give myself one of them little red marks?

I don't always get one so I was wondering if I could give myself one when I felt like I earned it fair & square.

I may not need help on this one :coolwink:
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

My ( AKA Farting Toady ) J & D replies in blue:



And Peace to you. This was a fun way to start today.

I'll do a toast ( after the roast ) and probably decide to abandon this thread.

Beam ne up Scotty !


Toady is a modern day version of Sancho Panza. Sancho is illiterate and proud of it but by influence of his new master he develops considerable knowledge about some books.

I look at his comments about my posts as being akin to Sancho Panza fighting a windmill with his blunt lance, a lance which is so blunt and misdirected that it is incapable of making even one valid point. I gave it mys best shot, trying to communicate with him and have an exchange of ideas but he was never interested in going in that direction.

Sancho Toady uses a technique of quoting something someone never said, such as insisting that I am claiming that a single musical note sounding at 440 Hz can be discordant with itself though I have never claimed any such thing. Toady then uses his blunt sword in a misguided attempt to defeat an imaginary assertion from his opponent, which Toady himself created.

Trying to have a discussion with Toady is a complete waste of time and accomplishes nothing so I'm putting Toady back on "IGNORE" and this time it will be PERMANENT! Even if someone copies his post, I will skip reading it.

As a parting shot, I'm going to cross the line and be brutally honest. I believe TOADY is jealous of me for starting this thread and having it be successful. We were both small time guys in our respective Orgs at about the same time and I was able to create a much larger effect on ESMB than he was. His response to this is to belittle me personally and do everything in his power to either close down this thread or remake it into a typical anti-tech and bashing type of thread. He does this while claiming that he is just messing with me in a good natured manner.

I don't get along well with Mark Baker but I find a lot lot of value in most of his posts. With Toady, it is all bad!! There is absolutely no value at all to any of his posts and thus no purpose in reading his crapola and thus IGNORE is the only logical option!! Have a nice life,l Sancho Toady.. I will never read another word from your jaundiced mind!!!
Lakey
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Carmelo,

I think you are on to something here.

But this is what scares me about the upcoming election:

Missiles in Poland.

NATO still insists it wants to put missiles in Poland.

Asserted with no links or back up.

The Russians have already repeatedly officially announced that they will bomb those missile bases.

I don't think Obama will put the missiles there.

I think if Romney gets elected he will put the missiles there because it will mean lucrative contracts and jobs in the defense inductry (the missiles are built in California with parts made in Florida)

That's your opinion but how did you arrive at it. Its stupid to just assume that Romney would put missiles there so that defense contractors in Florida and California can obtain lucrative contracts. First of all, Romney as President, would not have the power to "put the missiles there". To do such a thing, he probably would have to achieve super majorities in both houses of congress and would have to get bills through congress to even embark on such a plan. Next, he would have to find funding for such ambitious defense contracts.

Even if all this came to pass, it would take time to build all the missiles and outfit NATO with them. All the while the international community and the peace advocates here in the USA would be fighting the implementation of these missiles. Romney would likely be voted out after 4 years.


Conelezza Rice specialty before she was in the Bush admisitration was the Soviet military.

That is what she did as NSA prior to Bush.

So if she is the pick then it is almost for certain that the missiles will be put there.

This is just a quantum leap based on your personal biases! Someone worked for the Bush administration and therefore automatically would put NATO missiles in Poland. What a stupid jump in logic!! You are considering Rice to be some kind of robot with no mind of her own just because she worked in the Bush administration. What an irresponsible leap in logic.

And the Russians will bomb them; the Russians never bluff about war.

This is oversimplification. When is the last time that Russian Arms ever bombed another country? Russia bluffed the USA for decades as did the USA bluff the Russians. Neither side ever actually went to war. The Bay of Pigs was the closest instance of war and when Kennedy showed strength, the Russian backed down.


So this is the danger I see.

As far as the rest of politics and the economy, I think a president can only effect the economy marginally.

This is a huge contradiction. Above you state that if Romney gets elected, he will immediately put the missiles there - totally contrdictory to what you say above.


So the real danger is that we are looking at World War III.

And this country has a history of stumbling into unecessary wars.

The history extends back only to the Viet Nam war, then Bushes war in Iraq, and (surprise) Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan. I think the USA learned a lot from the mistakes in Viet Nam and even more so from Bushe's Iraq war. That war turned out to be severely harmful to the USA and I believe people learned from that and will be much less likely to stumble into an unnecessary war in the future.

But I thnik you are right about Rice being the VP running mate.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Sorry, TAJ, I don't think much of your above post! Your posts in the past have been traditionally of much higher quality. My opinion is that your post is just a short series of your opinions given without much deep thought or supporting info and that you tend to make too many quantum leaps of judgement.

It would be appreciated if you clarify some of your positions and fill in how you arrived at some of your conclusions. Overall, I have enjoyed reading your earlier posts and almost always pick up some new insights from them. This one didn't do it for me but maybe you were in a hurry. Anyway, I'm mainly just looking for some additional data as to how you reached your conclusions.
Lakey
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

<Snip>
As a parting shot, I'm going to cross the line and be brutally honest.

Honest... that would be real serious change for Lakey, but, he is right that to be honest is crossing the line from his usual MO

I believe TOADY is jealous of me for starting this thread and having it be successful.

I appreciate some people like Lakey may consider the height of achievement in their life thus far is a long thread on a message board, but, jealous of him for starting a thread. Really ? He needs to grasp at another straw.

We were both small time guys in our respective Orgs at about the same time and I was able to create a much larger effect on ESMB than he was.

Ye Gods. I was NEVER in the SO. Whatever role Lakey had as member of the SO was whatever role he had. I was always public. I never once signed a staff or SO contract anywhere.

I'm not about to go down the road of I did this and you did that in some stupid ass tit for tat childs game of who did what if a fucking cult !


Create an effect on ESMB ? What the fuck does that mean ? I post here.
Just like IRL, some people like me, some people don't like me. Same for my posts. Next. I've found some people on ESMB I'd really like to know & have as friends for life & there are a few people here I can do without ( and most likely that is true for most posters & lurkers here ).

I do not tout the "stats" of views or number of posts or play with myself imaginig that the guests raeding on this thread are academics ! WHo does that ? Hello !

Oh, have I started a thread or so here ( and elsewhere ) ? Yep. But as the OP of a thread I realize a thread has a life of its own as determined by posters. Yeah, one can bump their own thread. Yeah, one can enlisted friends to keep the posts going.
Yeah, one can feel they are allowed to direct a thread. To me, threads belong to the posters not the OP.


All I can say is read this thread ( & then ANY thread I have been on ) and judge for yourself who has a serious interest in the "life" & direction of a thread. ( I avoided saying an obvious ego isssue with authorship of a thread ).Why would one not just let a thread however it runs ?


His response to this is to belittle me personally and do everything in his power to either close down this thread or remake it into a typical anti-tech and bashing type of thread.

If I belittled Lakey personally wouldn't the mods have stepped in at some point and made some sort of sancation against me ( as has happened when I really did that with others).

As far as me trying to get this thread closed down I will flat out state I have never reported this thread or tried to get it shot / shut down nor have I ever reported Lakey on this or any thread ( wonder if he could say that with a straight face? )

In summation, does it strike me on a baord named ESMB that pumping a thread that is anything but the current day or past horrors of the C o $ strikes me as sort of , well, odd ? Yes it does. It would be up to Lakey to explain why he insists on trying to talk about anything but what really goes in the C o $ today & in the past.


So, is Toady anti-teck & anti-scientology ? Yep, I am very - and damn proud of it


You Lakey ?

Lakey says he won't read my posts. fair enough. But he does not get to try to slide by his comments about me & that not get a comment where other people get to see my response.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Sorry, TAJ, I don't think much of your above post! Your posts in the past have been traditionally of much higher quality. My opinion is that your post is just a short series of your opinions given without much deep thought or supporting info and that you tend to make too many quantum leaps of judgement.

It would be appreciated if you clarify some of your positions and fill in how you arrived at some of your conclusions. Overall, I have enjoyed reading your earlier posts and almost always pick up some new insights from them. This one didn't do it for me but maybe you were in a hurry. Anyway, I'm mainly just looking for some additional data as to how you reached your conclusions.
Lakey

You're probably correct in pointing out that I state my conclusion without showing how I arrived at them.

So here goes:

At the recent NATO the group reaffirmed their intention to place the missiles in Poland.

The missiles will be U.S missiles (I forget the name, but it is a few generations later than the Minuteman missiles.)

Obama had mentioned to the former President of Russia Medvedev (he was president at the time of his conversation with Obama) that after the election he will have more flexability. Medvedev replied "I understand. I will tell Vladmir. (Putin.)
This was caught on TV and on microphone.

Romney, who is not at all experienced in foreign policy (few new presidents are)
will probably adhere to the NATO decision. The bases will mean lucrative contracts and defense industry jobs in America.

Russia has already announced their intention to bomb the bases. Several times by both the defense minister and foreign secretary.

Camelo posted that Romney may pick Condelezza Rice as his Vice Presidential running mate.

She is certainly a possible choice.

Her special that won her a position on the National Security Council in the George Bush Sns' administration was her expertise on the Soviet Military.

My whole point is that Romney will probably put the missiles there; this would be consistent with his philosophy.

At that will most certainly lead to war.

The President does not need Congressional permission to deploy the military during peacetime.

President George W. Bush promised the Polish government he would put the missiles there.

Obama has been hesitant.

These are things that are not secretive ideas.

This has been discussed in public venues such as the BBC and the PBS News Hour and Foreign Affairs magazine as well as the Economist magazine.

The major American media has not mentioned it other than showing the comments caught on tape of the discussion between Obama and Medvedev.

The Russians never bluff about war and they never back down.

The Russians were not involved with the Bay of Pigs.

But after the Bay of Pigs they put defensive missiles in Cuba and they did not back down, even though they knew war was iminent.

They only removed the missiles when the U.S agreed to their terms which was a written guarantee from the President of the United States that the U.S. would never invade Cuba and that the U.S remove its missiles from Turkey.

As this was done just weeks before a mid-term election, it was publicized that the Soviets backed down.

But the truth is that they did not and the US met everyone of their demands.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

You're probably correct in pointing out that I state my conclusion without showing how I arrived at them.

So here goes:

At the recent NATO the group reaffirmed their intention to place the missiles in Poland.

The missiles will be U.S missiles (I forget the name, but it is a few generations later than the Minuteman missiles.)

Obama had mentioned to the former President of Russia Medvedev (he was president at the time of his conversation with Obama) that after the election he will have more flexability. Medvedev replied "I understand. I will tell Vladmir. (Putin.)
This was caught on TV and on microphone.

Romney, who is not at all experienced in foreign policy (few new presidents are)
will probably adhere to the NATO decision. The bases will mean lucrative contracts and defense industry jobs in America.

Russia has already announced their intention to bomb the bases. Several times by both the defense minister and foreign secretary.

Camelo posted that Romney may pick Condelezza Rice as his Vice Presidential running mate.

She is certainly a possible choice.

Her special that won her a position on the National Security Council in the George Bush Sns' administration was her expertise on the Soviet Military.

My whole point is that Romney will probably put the missiles there; this would be consistent with his philosophy.

I am not so sure about this. Republicans tend to favor a show of strength more than Democrats, so to some degree what you say has a ring of truth but no Replublican wants to precipitate a war with a major power such as Russia. Romney is a moderate in many areas and is not akin to extremely Right Wing Republicans. He had to exhibit moderation to be elected as governor in an extremely Blue State such as Mass. I do not believe that he is the extreme "hawk" type as was W. Bush.

At that will most certainly lead to war.

The President does not need Congressional permission to deploy the military during peacetime.

We are not talking only about deploying the military. We are also talking about building a large number of new and powerful missile which do not currently exist and then supplying them to NATO. The President can't just order the missiles built and presented to NATO on his own. Even if he could, who is going to pay the California and Florida Contractors which you cite? Congress would have to approve the funding or they could not get built.

This is true more so in a Republican Administration than in Obama's administration. The Obama crowd follows Keynesian economics and thinks that we can either print our way or borrow our way around any lack of funding. Romney, however, is dedicated to getting our debt under control so he would not likely order these missiles built under an Executive Fiat unless he was sure that Congress would find funding for the program.


President George W. Bush promised the Polish government he would put the missiles there.

Bush and his team have been out of office now for nearly 4 years. Bush's legacy was renounced strongly by the American public in the 2008 election which ushered in the Obama administration. Whatever Bush did no longer is relevant! I also think it was wrong that Obama bypassed Poland when making the decision not to put the missiles there. Poland has been a staunch ally of the US and their national security was at stake and yet Obama did not consult them at all when he reversed Bush's decision to put the missiles there. That was a slap in the face to one of our key allies!

Obama has been hesitant.

These are things that are not secretive ideas.

This has been discussed in public venues such as the BBC and the PBS News Hour and Foreign Affairs magazine as well as the Economist magazine.

The major American media has not mentioned it other than showing the comments caught on tape of the discussion between Obama and Medvedev.

The Russians never bluff about war and they never back down.

The Russians were not involved with the Bay of Pigs

They bluffed us for decades and we bluffed them. Remember Kruschev's comment in the 1950's, "We will bury you!" It was a threat or a bluff which never came to fruition, much to Russia's credit. Since WWII when they were initially attacked by the Nazi's, who have they attacked? The only country that comes to mind is Afghanistan and despite many years of fighting, Afghanistan, a 3rd world nation was able to hold them at bay and eventually cause then to leave. I believe they would think twice before bombing NATO installations in Europe.


But after the Bay of Pigs they put defensive missiles in Cuba and they did not back down, even though they knew war was iminent.

They only removed the missiles when the U.S agreed to their terms which was a written guarantee from the President of the United States that the U.S. would never invade Cuba and that the U.S remove its missiles from Turkey.

As this was done just weeks before a mid-term election, it was publicized that the Soviets backed down.

But the truth is that they did not and the US met everyone of their demands.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Thanks for the reply, it was very helpful. A lot of things were cleared up for me but I still find some contradictions in your logic.

My biggest gripe is your assertion that the U.S. president can mainly influence only a few important issues, mainly dealing with the economy and then, from this springboard, you suggest that if Romney was elected, he would immediately bring us to the verge of war with Russia by virtue of several powers which he would possess.l

Next, you cite deals which the Bush administration agreed to but the Obama administration back out on. All well and fine but I see no connection with these facts and what Romney would do. Romney is his own man, he is not a Bush clone which you seem to be inferring. Same with Condy Rice, she is her own woman, not necessarily a Bush clone. She won't necessarily and automatically be carrying out Bush's old programs. Many Republicans learned something from Bush's war in Iraq and hopefully will not automatically carry out similar programs in the future!

Lastly, I believe that Russians are survivors. They respect technology and military strength. They are prudent and tough negotiators and know how to play their cards so as to come out ahead. Obama is a total neophyte compared to someone like Putin and Putin would likely have more respect for a man such as Romney.

Obama has never run anything on his own or had to meet a payroll, etc. Throwing him in untested as "the leader of the Free World" was a dangerous mistake made by the American electorate although I admit that Mc Cain may not have been much better. Obama has a lot of abiolities and with more experience, perhaps he might be capable of being a great leader but with absolutely no experience or background in running anything as a chief executive, it was folly to elect him. The results he is getting speak for themselves as our national debt is approaching $16 trillion in funded debt and many times that amount in unfunded debt with no effort to reign in any of our spending!!!

Romney has been running businesses and organizations most of his life and was the governor of a major Blue State. It is likely that someone such as Putin would respect him more in negotiations than he respects Obama. Putin and Russia will survive, I believe Romney has a much better chance of negotiating effectively with Putin than Obama does.
Lakey
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Thanks for the reply, it was very helpful. A lot of things were cleared up for me but I still find some contradictions in your logic.

My biggest gripe is your assertion that the U.S. president can mainly influence only a few important issues, mainly dealing with the economy and then, from this springboard, you suggest that if Romney was elected, he would immediately bring us to the verge of war with Russia by virtue of several powers which he would possess.l

Next, you cite deals which the Bush administration agreed to but the Obama administration back out on. All well and fine but I see no connection with these facts and what Romney would do. Romney is his own man, he is not a Bush clone which you seem to be inferring. Same with Condy Rice, she is her own woman, not necessarily a Bush clone. She won't necessarily and automatically be carrying out Bush's old programs. Many Republicans learned something from Bush's war in Iraq and hopefully will not automatically carry out similar programs in the future!

Lastly, I believe that Russians are survivors. They respect technology and military strength. They are prudent and tough negotiator and now how to play their cards so as to come out ahead. Obama is a total neophyte compared to someone like Putin but Putin would likely have more respect for a man such as Romney.

Obama has never run anything on his own or had to meet a payroll, etc. Throwing him in untested as "the leader of the Free World" was a dangerous mistake made by the American people. He has a lot of assets and with more experience, perhaps he might be a great leader but with absolutely no experience or background in running anything as a chief executive, it was folly to elect him. The results he is getting are there for the viewing as our national debt is approaching $16 trillion in funded debt and many times that amount in unfunded debt.

Romney has been running businesses and organization most of his life and was the governor of a major Blue State. It is likely that someone such as Putin would respect him more in negotiations than he respects Obama.
Lakey

Watch what happens.

The proof is in the pudding.

Several times in one week in 1962 we came within all out nuclear war, and all of it was because each side misinterpted the intentions behind the actions of its opponent.

This was just like World War I.

And just like the Pelopennesian War.

And just like so many other wars that happened unexpectedly.

But all the factors that caused the Cubam Missile Crisis are present now.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Laky,

I wanted to go over this oint on your response.

"They bluffed us for decades and we bluffed them. Remember Kruschev's comment in the 1950's, "We will bury you!" It was a threat or a bluff which never came to fruition, much to Russia's credit. Since WWII when they were initially attacked by the Nazi's, who have they attacked? The only country that comes to mind is Afghanistan and despite many years of fighting, Afghanistan, a 3rd world nation was able to hold them at bay and eventually cause then to leave. I believe they would think twice before bombing NATO installations in Europe."

First of all, Khrushchev's comment "We will bury you" was about economic competition. Again Americans twisted it into war to gain support for the defense industry.

Go back and get a copy of the speech.

They did not threaten us with war during the Cold War.

They rarely attack another country. But they do attack when threatened or attacked.

I might like to add that Afghanistanm the third world country youspoke of, has held the United States military at bay for over ten years.

They will bomb the missile bases in Poland.

You don't know that country's history or attitude about enemies on their boarders.

They said they will bomb them and they will bomb them.

And only a pure idiot would put the missiles there anyway.

It is asking for war to do that just as if Russia put missiles on the Mexican boarder.

It is incedibly naive to think that they won't bomb them.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Laky,

I wanted to go over this oint on your response.

"They bluffed us for decades and we bluffed them. Remember Kruschev's comment in the 1950's, "We will bury you!" It was a threat or a bluff which never came to fruition, much to Russia's credit. Since WWII when they were initially attacked by the Nazi's, who have they attacked? The only country that comes to mind is Afghanistan and despite many years of fighting, Afghanistan, a 3rd world nation was able to hold them at bay and eventually cause then to leave. I believe they would think twice before bombing NATO installations in Europe."

First of all, Khrushchev's comment "We will bury you" was about economic competition. Again Americans twisted it into war to gain support for the defense industry.

Go back and get a copy of the speech.

I don't need to get a copy of the speech. I was a Senior in High School when the Speech was made on 11/18/56. I am posting a paragraph from Wikepedia on what Khrushchev said at various times:

" "We will bury you!" ("Мы вас похороним!", transliterated as My vas pokhoronim!) was a phrase famously used by Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev while addressing Western ambassadors at a reception at the Polish embassy in Moscow on November 18, 1956.[1][2][3]
The actual verbal context was: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will dig you in" ("Нравится вам или нет, но история на нашей стороне. Мы вас закопаем"). In his subsequent public speech Khrushchev declared: "[...] We must take a shovel and dig a deep grave, and bury colonialism as deep as we can".[4] Later, on August 24, 1963, Khrushchev remarked in his speech in Yugoslavia, "I once said, 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you,"[5] a reference to the Marxist saying, "The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism", based on the concluding statement in Chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto: "What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable". Khrushchev repeated this Marxist thesis at a meeting with journalists in the U.S. in September 1959. However, many Americans interpreted the quote as a nuclear threat.[6]


They did not threaten us with war during the Cold War.

You are probably right about that but just look at how the phrase is constructed. It could be interpreted literally as putting us in a grave with shovels or it could be interpreted figuratively as meaning to bury us economically. When Khrushchev repeated the phrase in Sept, 1959, many Americans interpreted it as a nuclear threat. Let's face it, the USSR had no free press at that time, al officiall communications came from the Soviet Government.

Khrushchev was no fool, he uttered to words to scare Westerners (saber rattling) but then knew that if he was accused of making a nuclear threat, he could easily back track and say that he only meant burying us economically.


They rarely attack another country. But they do attack when threatened or attacked.

Yeah, how about when they attacked Japan in the last couple of weeks of WWII. After the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and the US and allies demanded unconditional surrender, the emperor of Japan asked the Soviet Ambassador in Tokyo to approach President Roosevelt with a message that Japan wanted to commence discussing peace talks.

Japan and the USSR hand never gone to war against each other during all of WWII but the greedyUSSR wanted to come out of WWII with some Japanese Territory and were secretly already planning to attack the virtually defeated Japanese to steal some of their territory, i.e., Sakhalin Island. Russia attacked on Aug 11, 1945 only 4 days before the Japanese Surrender. Fighting went on until Aug 21, with the Japanese putting up some very strong resistance until the Soviets finally took over.

I might like to add that the cowardly Russian Government decided not to deliver the message from the Emperor of Japan to the US Government that Japan was ready to begin peace negotations. The cowardly and deceitful Soviet government instead invaded Sakhalin Island and took it over and had the audacity to participate in the peace negotiations as one of the victorious countries, even they fought for less than a week before the official surrender of Japan.

This treacherous act led to two consequences; first, it ensured that a secont atom bomb would be dropped on Japan and second it enabled Russia to take over a Japanese island and move over 300,000 Japanese citizens off of the own territory so that the island, at least the Southern half of it, became part of Russia.

Any war crimes prosecuted against any Soviet leaders for those acts? Nah, the winners aren't tried for war crimes, only the losers.


I might like to add that Afghanistanm the third world country youspoke of, has held the United States military at bay for over ten years.

They haven't held the US military at bay for over 10 years. That is such a false assertion. The original fighting where the Taliban government was completely defeated occurred very quickly with a relatively small contingent of U.S. fighters supported by many of our allies.

From then on, our activities there consisted of attempting to protect the new government and help make it able to defend itself against the Taliban and its allies. Since only a tiny portion of our forces were approved to see action there, the best the Taliban could do was mount guerrilla raids against the new government we set up or set off suicide bombs in the vicinity of U. S. occupied areas.


They will bomb the missile bases in Poland.

You don't know that country's history or attitude about enemies on their boarders.

They said they will bomb them and they will bomb them.

And only a pure idiot would put the missiles there anyway.

It is asking for war to do that just as if Russia put missiles on the Mexican boarder.

It is incedibly naive to think that they won't bomb them.

The Anabaptist Jacques

It is your opinion that "they" will bomb them.

It is only your opinion that Romney will put missiles there anyway.

It is only your opinion that Obama will not put missiles there.

It is your opinion that it is incredibly naive to think that they wont bomb them.
(Actually, no one has even suggested this concept, so like Toady, you just make up a scenario of your own, attribute it to "others" and then attack it.)

When you attack something others have not said, you attack by asserting your opinions and acting as if they are truths.

I'm not even saying they are not sound opinions, they seem well thought out and represent plausible outcomes - but a reasonable and well thought out opinion is still just an opinion - it is not a fact or truth and your fervent assertions would lead people to believe that your opinions are equivalent to truths.
Lakey
 
Last edited:
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Laky,

I wanted to go over this oint on your response.

"They bluffed us for decades and we bluffed them. Remember Kruschev's comment in the 1950's, "We will bury you!" It was a threat or a bluff which never came to fruition, much to Russia's credit. Since WWII when they were initially attacked by the Nazi's, who have they attacked? The only country that comes to mind is Afghanistan and despite many years of fighting, Afghanistan, a 3rd world nation was able to hold them at bay and eventually cause then to leave. I believe they would think twice before bombing NATO installations in Europe."

If you go to Prague as I did I expect you'll still see the Russian bullet holes in the buildings and statues.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

It is your opinion that "they" will bomb them.

It is only your opinion that Romney will put missiles there anyway.

It is only your opinion that Obama will not put missiles there.

It is your opinion that it is incredibly naive to think that they wont bomb them.
(Actually, no one has even suggested this concept, so like Toady, you just make up a scenario of your own, attribute it to "others" and then attack it.)

When you attack something others have not said, you attack by asserting your opinions and acting as if they are truths.

I'm not even saying they are not sound opinions, they seem well thought out and represent plausible outcomes - but a reasonable and well thought out opinion is still just an opinion - it is not a fact or truth and your fervent assertions would lead people to believe that your opinions are equivalent to truths.
Lakey

Of course it is my opinion just like every thing you wrote is your opinion.

The Soviets agreed to declare war three months to the day after the war in Europe is over.

This is because Roosevelt and Churchill asked Stalin to do this at Yalta in November of 1944.

Stalin kept the U.S informed of the negotiations with Japan. You are simply making this up.

And people who lose 28 million people in a war are not cowardly.

You're just prejudice and I think this alters your views of the facts.

The US strategic intelligence said this would cause Japan to surrender without an invasion.

Your quote from Khrushchev backs up what I had said--that he was referring to economics, not war. It was the American government and media who told Americans that he was talking about war.

And I have to say that your assessment of what is going on in Afghanistan is laughable.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Yes, I understand now that you wrote it and not Smila. I apologize to Smila. For you, Mr. Nobody, you once again prove how accurately your screen name was chosen.

Oh my, that extremely low blow really makes me suffer. :giggle:

A person could write, "I belong to a group of people who love black and white movies better than technicolor movies; we feel black and white movies seem to be able to convey the darker human emotions better."

Well, colors are just frequencies as well. Black and white is nothing but a reduced/more selective frequency range. Of course, a black and white movie has a special flair, because it allows you to focus on picture information that might be drowned in too many colors.

An instrument, tuned in a slightly higher or lower pitch, will still have the approximately same frequency range. A non-standard-pitch-tuning may have an (usually unwanted) influx on the instrument's resonance frequencies, though.

Don't trust me, ask someone who you think is more reliable. For example Smilla - ask her what happens if she tunes her instrument 1/4 (or whatever) note down. I predict her answer will be the description of what I call the "saggy strings" syndrome. The trebles a bit weaker, the basses more muddy and less defined, the instrument is slightly easier to play, because the left hand needs a little less "grip".

You might then respond, "I watched a movie in black and white and then watched the same movie in color and I did not feel that the black and white version conveyed any of the human emotions better. "Any such beliefs are just voodoo and nobody really believes them."


Well, Lakey, here's a little anecdote from my younger days:

My first piano and how I destroyed it

I had already restored several guitars, basses and amps successfully, even a few keyboards and synths, but this time I wanted something more challenging: A real Piano. I didn't have enough room for a grand piano, so I was looking for a cheap worn-out upright one, which I soon found in an old pub that was about to close.

"This is a piece of crap which hasn't been played for at least 100 years, don't even think about ever playing it. We've only had it here for decoration for the past decades and we've already taken these decorative parts off. You can have it for free but you have to care for the transportation yourself," the owner said. I did some basic checks on that thing and after that I said: "That's an ugly beast, but OK, I take it. We'll come pick it up within the next 3 hours." Which we (I and a friend from the "muscle brigade") did.

So now I had an ugly old piano in my living-room/workshop. BTW: Why is it, that all my living rooms always turn into workshops, rehearsal studios and whatnot? ;) Anyway, that thing was there - ugly, dirty, totally out of tune, quite a few broken strings. "Well, at least it doesn't have a cast iron frame - if everything goes wrong, I can shove it into my oven, put it to some good use that way and be done with it," I thought. So after an extended cleaning session and some minor key repairs and replacing the broken strings, tuning it was the next step. I didn't bother with a tuner or a fork, I just used one of it's most authentic sounding tones in the middle octave as a reference tone and went from there.

After a few weeks of work I had a nice sounding, not too shabby looking piano - so I decided to invite some friends to test it out in an little jam session. Ugh, the horror! This thing was well in tune with itself, but way too low, at least 2 tones off! "Fuck, I really should have used a tuner," I thought.

So for the weeks to come, I tried to slowly get it's pitch up to A=440 Hz. The damn tuners didn't want to hold the tension. So I took all the strings off, took the tuners out and treated them with powder for some additional friction. Then I re-assembled the whole thing, and started over with the tuning process.

The keys that I had already pre-tuned had a nice "bite", so I had had high expectations about how the end product would sound. So far, I didn't have to spend too much on replacement parts etc, just a few bucks for some new hammers and a bit of felt - although the replacement strings almost cost me an arm and a leg, since they had to be individually manufactured. Thanks to that professional piano builder who owed me a favor, all turned out well. ;)

Anyway, day by day I was getting closer to the final pitch (A=440 Hz), until one night I woke up from a loud noise. I had no clue what that sound was or where it came from, but I soon found it out: All my tuning work was gone and the piano was even more out of tune than it has ever been before.

A quick diagnosis revealed the disaster: The wooden frame had collapsed under the tension. So all I had now were some bits 'n pieces. OK, so now I knew why so many piano builders and tuners advise against bringing old pianos up to pitch. ;)

So what did I learn from that experience? A lot, really. For example, that lower pitch tunings do definitely make sense, especially with old instruments - they just aren't built for these modern higher string tensions. In that light, an A=432Hz-tuning makes a lot of sense, but that's really all there is to it. On modern instruments, all you'd get with a lower pitch tuning would be what I would call the "saggy strings syndrome".

So, apart from the saggy strings syndrome, there is nothing special, magical or cosmic about this A=432 Hz tuning. The rest IS voodoo. Of course, that's just my humble opinion, but I stick to it because I have enough reasons to do so. ;)


Your first sentence would be an honest opinion but your second sentence takes a quantum leap which renders your entire post worthless.
Lakey

I admit, if you knew a little more about how an instrument works and how it is built, my opinion would be less worthless for you. But that's just how it is. Life can be so cruel at times, eh? :coolwink:
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Snip

Don't trust me, ask someone who you think is more reliable. For example Smilla - ask her what happens if she tunes her instrument 1/4 (or whatever) note down. I predict her answer will be the description of what I call the "saggy strings" syndrome. The trebles a bit weaker, the basses more muddy and less defined, the instrument is slightly easier to play, because the left hand needs a little less "grip".

The result would be just as you say. I would probably need to use some heavier strings to keep the string tension as near to normal as possible.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Unfortunately, you very very funny & most enjoyable post ( I played it 3 times ) apparently did not put a smile on Lakey's face. You might have to settle for the rest of us getting belly laughs from it.

Oh well, I'm OK with that. At least I've tried. Humming: "You can't always get what you want" :)

This 432 / 440 business is pretty interesting. First it was middle C@ 440 then it shifted to A ( That is a a tonal shift my froiends ! ).

Noooo, really? What a surprise! :duh: :wink2:

Then we had to work through a single tone can n ot be discordant with itself.

On some instruments that's true, but on a piano not so much. If the up to 3 strings that make a single tone are sufficiently out of tune, they'll produce a very discordant tone.

And we had to sort out telephone ringers determined pitch a few hundred years before telephone

Oh, nevermindm......I think I'll go toke a J & see if this stuff can fit together... or not.

You're free to do whatever you want, methinks. :p

Oh, I have a serious question : Can I give myself one of them little red marks?

I don't always get one so I was wondering if I could give myself one when I felt like I earned it fair & square.

No, not as far as I know.

I may not need help on this one :coolwink:

Good, less work for me, then. :coolwink:
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

OK, Mr N . . .

With 40 years on stage as a musician I believe you :yes:

This patter reminds me of when I played the fiddle for a while. One of the things told to me is that all violins have what is called a "wolf tone" . . . . that is a particular pitch that sets up a discordant resonance that results in a rather off pitch ugly sound . . . .

Good violins simply are lucky enough to not have the "wolf tone" on a needed regular "note."

Ummm, not that I know whether I hit one of these things . . . I didn't have a good fiddle, and my playing was rather rotten anyway :blush:

Rog

On the last part of your post: Well, every instrument has it's personal Dos and Dont's. A good musician can deliberately make any instrument sound good or bad. One has to learn about the "personality" of the instrument and about these Do's and Dont's and how to use them. For a guitarist for example, a string snare can be a very ugly thing, but it can also add some flair to a sound. Which is why I usually adjust my string action so that I can have both, depending on the right-hand-technique I use. The downside is that I better shouldn't play extremely loud, because then I would just get more snare than I'd ever want to have. But that's no problem for me - I don't play that loud at home and on stage I have amplification anyway.

So if your violin has certain resonance frequencies, you need to learn how to avoid them and how to provoke them for some special effects. If bad glue joints are a problem, a good violin maker can fix that, but if your instrument is a cheap one (and no potential to become a classic) , you might be better off by just buying a new one.

Oh, and I mentioned the potential to become a classic because I once bought a cheap e-guitar for 30,- restored it, sold it for 150,- and just this year I've seen that exact same model in worse shape than mine was back then. This model was offered at a bargain price for only 4500,-

So yeah, one day a piece of cheap crap, 3 decades later, it might be an expensive classic that might be hard to come by. Keep that in mind.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Watching the parade of "make-self-right" and "make-another/others-wrong" on this thread, by one individual in particular, sparked in me when I saw this below image this morning . . .

Now, now, Toady . . . don't post what I think you're thinking :biggrin:

552289_336025256478570_1779533939_n.jpg
 
Re: The State & Fate of being on the Shit List of the Boss of The Thread !

Watching the parade of "make-self-right" and "make-another/others-wrong" on this thread, by one individual in particular, sparked in me when I saw this below image this morning . . .

Now, now, Toady . . . don't post what I think you're thinking :biggrin:

552289_336025256478570_1779533939_n.jpg

Rog, I'll leave it at " Thank you for your post " !

I won't say it here ....but ... now when I see ( & so enjoy ) Mr Nobodypost I do a mental translation to Mr Voodooman.

And TAJ seemed to also stepped in it with the boss of this thread.

There is 2 of the 6 very brightest & best posters ever.

( Can somebody get my boy da Boss that thing for installing a sense of humor ? )

PS : MrNobody, one of my dearest friends has tuned and rebuilt pianos for the last 40 or so years. Enjoyed your story, tell more !
We get together many weekends and he tells tales of the fun of the last week like when someone had him come over for a tuning of a piano they didn't remember when had been tuned & turns out the soundboard was mostly pulled off - that tune turned into a complete nightmare rebuild done on location instead of his shop

Anyway, he is a professional jazz musician who when he comes over will sit and play for hours as we sip wine. Our neighbors LOVE the concert and come over with requests. It gets wild. I digress.

Although you allegedly post wild Voodoo stuff I do love reading your posts.

And TAJ, dear God, there are posts of his I have my wife read & THEN I PRINT THEM OUT. The only posts I've ever printed out.

Of course Rog & Face are high on my read list - and everybody knows I love Smilla.

I've decided to agree there is no point to my posts so I'll just ramble here & there :coolwink:

(Actually, no one has even suggested this concept, so like Toady, you just make up a scenario of your own, attribute it to "others" and then attack it.)
Lakey

If Lakey only knew how many PMs I've gotten pointing out him doing exactly what he claims others are doing to him & this in particular !
 
Last edited:
Re: The State & Fate of being on the Shit List of the Boss of The Thread !

<snip>
PS : MrNobody, one of my dearest friends has tuned and rebuilt pianos for the last 40 or so years. Enjoyed your story, tell more !

There's not that much to tell about my piano restoration business. ;) The most impressive thing I've ever done was the restoration of an old Steinway grand piano from... what was it... something between 1880 and 1920 or so. All in all an easy job, replace some hammers, some leather and some felt and then adjust and tune that thing. Oh and the lid (the big one) needed a refinish. That was 20 years or so ago, and I haven't heard any complaints about that job, so it probably wasn't too badly done.

I'm not doing much restoration these days, maybe 2 or 3 guitars or basses per year and the odd keyboard now and then. Just recently I've been offered an old electronic Wurlitzer organ for free. Allegedly that thing has suddenly become silent, which indicates that the error shouldn't be too had to find and fix.

The main problem: I now live in a much smaller flat, so I'll have some major changes to do, before I could haul such a monster in. That thing takes up more space than all my 5 other keyboards combined, when they're stashed away that is... A Wurlitzer is a Wurlitzer, it can't be folded and stashed away like the modern keyboards can.

We get together many weekends and he tells tales of the fun of the last week like when someone had him come over for a tuning of a piano they didn't remember when had been tuned & turns out the soundboard was mostly pulled off - that tune turned into a complete nightmare rebuild done on location instead of his shop

:ohmy: That's worse than fixing a car with just the onboard tools... Sometimes it can be done, but it isn't fun.

Anyway, he is a professional jazz musician who when he comes over will sit and play for hours as we sip wine. Our neighbors LOVE the concert and come over with requests. It gets wild. I digress.

LOL, I can imagine that. Wherever musicians meet - if there's an instrument, there'll be music. That + some guests + wine (or beer, which I prefer) = a very nice evening. :biggrin:

Although you allegedly post wild Voodoo stuff I do love reading your posts.

Well, I admit it. Sometimes I have some fun with voodoo. Recently I saw HiFi-Voodoo at it's best: An eBay ad - 2 standard speaker cables, each 2 meters long, for only (wait, I'll type it out..) onehundredsixtythousand Euro. :omg: :faint: Sell one set of those and live happily ever after. Who the fuck buys that crap?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top