Thomas Kay wrote:
>>Damn it, Larry. Just when nobody answers Irvin's last post, you
have
>>to go on with this tree-hugging rubbish. Stop with the obvious,
>>already.
>>
>>larry lutz wrote:
>>>>I think the true object of this forum has been forgotten
>>>>amid all the disputes going on.
>>>>The truth is that none of us benefits from the constant
>>>>exchange of insults. We should concentrate on giving and
>>>>receiving information.
>>>>Is there multitracking software better than Vegas?
>>>>Sure. Some cost a LOT more, some cost the same, some cost
>>>>less, some cost a little more. Vegas is not perfect, and
>>>>never claimed to be.
>>>>So, what's the point? Let's just work with the tools we
>>>>have.
>>>>IMO, people like Irvin just bait others with opinions that
>>>>can't be easily refuted. But the true object of his posts
>>>>was to mention other software as many times as possible.
>>>>I was surprised to see so many of us falling for the trap...
>>>>
>>>>I ask everyone here to just go back to a friendly,
>>>>informative exchange of ideas.
>>>>
>>>>Viva Vegas!
>>>>
>>>>larry



Thomas:

Why don't we just forget about Irvin? He's gone (or so he says...).
I don't think my invitation to discussing topics that have to do with
Vegas Pro is a bad idea. I see that you prefer the fighting going on
in this forum.
Want to know the truth? You guys were not doing very well against
him. He is not the most pleasant person to deal with, but he had
valid points and the fighting should have stopped a long time ago.
Anyway, I'm not going to start another argument.

bye.

Larry, thanks for the truth. My guess is that you were one of the
only Vegas users that saw validity in Irvin's ranting.


larry lutz wrote:
>>
>>
>>Thomas Kay wrote:
>>>>Damn it, Larry. Just when nobody answers Irvin's last post, you
>>have
>>>>to go on with this tree-hugging rubbish. Stop with the obvious,
>>>>already.
>>>>
>>>>larry lutz wrote:
>>>>>>I think the true object of this forum has been forgotten
>>>>>>amid all the disputes going on.
>>>>>>The truth is that none of us benefits from the constant
>>>>>>exchange of insults. We should concentrate on giving and
>>>>>>receiving information.
>>>>>>Is there multitracking software better than Vegas?
>>>>>>Sure. Some cost a LOT more, some cost the same, some cost
>>>>>>less, some cost a little more. Vegas is not perfect, and
>>>>>>never claimed to be.
>>>>>>So, what's the point? Let's just work with the tools we
>>>>>>have.
>>>>>>IMO, people like Irvin just bait others with opinions that
>>>>>>can't be easily refuted. But the true object of his posts
>>>>>>was to mention other software as many times as possible.
>>>>>>I was surprised to see so many of us falling for the trap...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I ask everyone here to just go back to a friendly,
>>>>>>informative exchange of ideas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Viva Vegas!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>larry
>>
>>
>>
>>Thomas:
>>
>>Why don't we just forget about Irvin? He's gone (or so he says...).
>>I don't think my invitation to discussing topics that have to do
with
>>Vegas Pro is a bad idea. I see that you prefer the fighting going
on
>>in this forum.
>>Want to know the truth? You guys were not doing very well against
>>him. He is not the most pleasant person to deal with, but he had
>>valid points and the fighting should have stopped a long time ago.
>>Anyway, I'm not going to start another argument.
>>
>>bye.
>>

Thomas Kay wrote:
>>Larry, thanks for the truth. My guess is that you were one of the
>>only Vegas users that saw validity in Irvin's ranting.
>>

Thomas:

I don't give a fuck how many people agree or disagree with Irvin. I'm
a non-professional user of Vegas, and it does what it does for me.
That's it. But I ain't so damn stupid, I'm gonna deny the truth.
If we were real professional audio people, we wouldn't be using Vegas!
That's the truth. And if you don't like it, you can just go fuck
yourself...

Larry, that was quite a 180 post from your original! And as I was
just having some fun with you about your post for a kinder forum, it
was not my intention to get you so angry.

That said, speak for yourself on what a professional user of Vegas
is. As it has been posted on this site before, many people are using
Vegas for "pro" applications everyday. Though my main goal is
artistic, I have paid a few bills with VO work and I use Vegas. And I
don't need to punch in on the fly. (Thanks for the punch reply,
Charles.)

And where as Nuendo looks nice, I'll reserve my judgement about
it's "pro"-ness and just see how it develops. Until then, music is
laying down just fine into Vegas.



larry lutz wrote:
>>Thomas Kay wrote:
>>>>Larry, thanks for the truth. My guess is that you were one of the
>>>>only Vegas users that saw validity in Irvin's ranting.
>>>>
>>
>>Thomas:>>I don't give a fuck how many people agree or disagree with
Irvin. I'm
>>a non-professional user of Vegas, and it does what it does for me.
>>That's it. But I ain't so damn stupid, I'm gonna deny the truth.
>>If we were real professional audio people, we wouldn't be using
Vegas!
>>That's the truth. And if you don't like it, you can just go fuck
>>yourself...
>>

Thomas:
I won't take shit from nobody. I made a suggestion and you accused me
of being on Irvin's side. Well, I don't give a fuck about Irvin and I
don't give a fuck about you, either.




Thomas Kay wrote:
>>Larry, that was quite a 180 post from your original! And as I was
>>just having some fun with you about your post for a kinder forum,
it
>>was not my intention to get you so angry.
>>
>>That said, speak for yourself on what a professional user of Vegas
>>is. As it has been posted on this site before, many people are
using
>>Vegas for "pro" applications everyday. Though my main goal is
>>artistic, I have paid a few bills with VO work and I use Vegas. And
I
>>don't need to punch in on the fly. (Thanks for the punch reply,
>>Charles.)
>>
>>And where as Nuendo looks nice, I'll reserve my judgement about
>>it's "pro"-ness and just see how it develops. Until then, music is
>>laying down just fine into Vegas.
>>
>>
>>
>>larry lutz wrote:
>>>>Thomas Kay wrote:
>>>>>>Larry, thanks for the truth. My guess is that you were one of
the
>>>>>>only Vegas users that saw validity in Irvin's ranting.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thomas:>>I don't give a fuck how many people agree or disagree
with
>>Irvin. I'm
>>>>a non-professional user of Vegas, and it does what it does for
me.
>>>>That's it. But I ain't so damn stupid, I'm gonna deny the truth.
>>>>If we were real professional audio people, we wouldn't be using
>>Vegas!
>>>>That's the truth. And if you don't like it, you can just go fuck
>>>>yourself...
>>>>

Damnit, guys... Let's not get into another Irvin situation. I think
the only "truth" to come out of these discussions is the fact that if
you diss Vegas in the official Vegas forum, you'll get dissed. Period.

Johan, if you'll notice, Larry and I had ended this post two days
ago. Done. My first point to Larry was simply joking with him in the
first place in which he took more seriously than my intention. My
fault for not knowing how to joke more clearly.

So, let it go and get back to your songs. Breathe 1...2...3...4...

Johan Althoff wrote:
>>Damnit, guys... Let's not get into another Irvin situation. I think
>>the only "truth" to come out of these discussions is the fact that
if
>>you diss Vegas in the official Vegas forum, you'll get dissed.
Period.

OK, sorry about that.

Thomas Kay wrote:
>>Johan, if you'll notice, Larry and I had ended this post two days
>>ago. Done. My first point to Larry was simply joking with him in
the
>>first place in which he took more seriously than my intention. My
>>fault for not knowing how to joke more clearly.
>>
>>So, let it go and get back to your songs. Breathe 1...2...3...4...
>>
>>Johan Althoff wrote:
>>>>Damnit, guys... Let's not get into another Irvin situation. I
think
>>>>the only "truth" to come out of these discussions is the fact
that
>>if
>>>>you diss Vegas in the official Vegas forum, you'll get dissed.
>>Period.