Apple Logic Pro /LogicExpress Discussion

I have been one of the unlucky ones that have had severe and chronic 
stability problems with L7.  I had hoped 7.01 would have improved 
things, but it didn't.  With all the buzz about 7.1s features - which I 
think sound great - I didn't want this more basic issue to get lost, so 
I wrote a letter to the LUG (which also reflected my frustration after 
my fourth crash that day.)

It wasn't permitted to be posted.  Instead, I received a letter fwitht 
he subject line:

Message not approved: Logic Pro 7.1 announced

The list warden write that I should wait until the product was out 
before voicing concerns.  So it's OK to get excited and praise a 
product before it's released but if you wonder whether past problems 
are being addressed....well, that is not permitted on the LUG board.  
In my opinion, Emapple might benefit from more real world input before 
releases, but apparently that is not company policy.

Seeing as complaining about censorship on the LUG board would, most 
likely, be censored, I thought, as so many people here are on both 
lists, that I'd post the text of my exchange here:  First is my letter 
and then the reply.

>> Quite frankly, new features and even bug fixes are of secondary
>> interest to my one burning question: Is this flaky, fragile program
>> finally more stable?
>>
>> Best Wishes,
>> Michael A. Levine
>> www.MichaelLevineMusic.com

On Apr 6, 2005, at 3:33 PM, Jeremy Martin wrote:

>
> Hi Michael,
>
> You'll need to wait until it is publicly released and people have a
> chance to use it to find this out.
>
> Best wishes
> Jeremy
>

..sigh..

> The list warden write that I should wait until the product was out
> before voicing concerns.

Very true. Most complaints on the list are based on probabilities and rumours 
and it's getting pretty tiresome.

> So it's OK to get excited and praise a 
> product before it's released

People are excited about the list of features that is released. If there was a 
list of still-present bugs, you'd be very right to complain about them before 
having tried it out. Unfortunately, there isn't.

> In my opinion, Emapple might benefit from more real world input before
> releases, but apparently that is not company policy.

When are people going to learn that the Logic User Group is NOT Emapple input, 
and that compaining to the list will not get you through to Apple?

> Seeing as complaining about censorship on the LUG board would, most
> likely, be censored,

It shouldn't (and normally isn't), since talking about the list policy is 
on-topic. And again here we have a nice fashionable 
probably-most-likely-complaint.

> >> Quite frankly, new features and even bug fixes are of secondary
> >> interest to my one burning question: Is this flaky, fragile program
> >> finally more stable?

What's the difference between bugfixes and improved stability, and how did you 
expect to have a useful discussion about that on the LUG when no one has had 
a chance to try it out?

It's just too damn fashionable to whine, and after the endless repeats about 
the same trouble (which was 33% real, 33% rumours and 33% caused by 
misconfiguration, not reading the manual or flaky hardware) I'm glad the 
moderators decide to do some filtering. And the idea that "complaints are not 
allowed" is proven wrong by the tons of verbal vomit that can still be found 
in the archives.

Now first try it, then complain.

Maurits.

> So it's OK to get excited and praise a
> product before it's released

As I just saw in the admin posting, all endlessly circular discussions about 
7.1 are refused, including the praising ones. So it has nothing to do about 
not being allowed to complain or express concerns. So again we see here how 
easy it is to color the truth.

Maurits.

> Yeah, there is a dark underside to the LUG list. I heard about from other
> people privately at first. What they do is certain "special people" who are
> uncensored and can almost anything they want - including insulting people -
> with no ill affect.

It's quite a task to moderate a list with thousands of members, so people who 
have shown not to be needing moderation are left through automatically. 
That's the only thing "special" about them. They can not say "almost anything 
they want" because that would just get them immediately back off the 
whitelist. This is actually no "dark underside" but a fact that is clearly 
explained in the list information - which by the way also explains all other 
reasons for banning posts.

> Meanwhile you or I would have messages banned for any 
> of a dozen reasons.

But all sane reasons.

I've been reading enough newsgroups to see what LUG would look like without 
moderation, and I prefer it with. And it sure beats mailing people privately 
to ask them to stop talking about something because you don't like the 
subject, which is how it works on Logic_Cafe.

Now, let's start a "Logic 7.1 probably sucks" thread here as well as a "LUG 
members are repressed" thread, very useful indeed and at least here you can. 
Unless the owner mails you to stop talking about it of course, but with these 
subjects he probably won't.

Maurits.

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Michael Levine <mlmusic@e...> 
wrote:
> I have been one of the unlucky ones that have had severe and 
chronic 
> stability problems with L7.  I had hoped 7.01 would have improved 
> things, but it didn't.  With all the buzz about 7.1s features - 
which I 
> think sound great - I didn't want this more basic issue to get 
lost, so 
> I wrote a letter to the LUG (which also reflected my frustration 
after 
> my fourth crash that day.)
> 
> It wasn't permitted to be posted.  Instead, I received a letter 
fwitht 
> he subject line:
> 
> Message not approved: Logic Pro 7.1 announced
> 
> The list warden write that I should wait until the product was out 
> before voicing concerns.  So it's OK to get excited and praise a 
> product before it's released but if you wonder whether past 
problems 
> are being addressed....well, that is not permitted on the LUG 
board.  
> In my opinion, Emapple might benefit from more real world input 
before 
> releases, but apparently that is not company policy.
> 
> Seeing as complaining about censorship on the LUG board would, most 
> likely, be censored, I thought, as so many people here are on both 
> lists, that I'd post the text of my exchange here:  First is my 
letter 
> and then the reply.
> 
> >> Quite frankly, new features and even bug fixes are of secondary
> >> interest to my one burning question: Is this flaky, fragile 
program
> >> finally more stable?
> >>
> >> Best Wishes,
> >> Michael A. Levine
> >> www.MichaelLevineMusic.com
> 
> On Apr 6, 2005, at 3:33 PM, Jeremy Martin wrote:
> 
> >
> >seems to me the world at large has turned into big brother, praise 
me only!! there is no more freedom of speech, and if you think you 
have that right, look out for the irs or some other governmental 
agency to come after you. 

I wish there was another company that made a program as musical as 
logic but with better customer support, silly me! the logic forum has 
always been a bit self-righteous and i never could figure that out. i 
thought that's the only place to get help with problematic issues in 
real time. so many programmers write and don't test performance 
enough before putting it out on the shelves and charging big bucks 
for a nice idea but very flawed product. when you try to communicate 
with support, you get the lesser than treatment. i'd be grateful to 
have people explain to me what i did wrong or need to tweak a bit if 
i was the writer. seems we're really the ones doing them a favor but 
they don't have the integrity to see it that way. hope i don't get 
censored.
gary

> me only!! there is no more freedom of speech, and if you think you
> have that right, look out for the irs or some other governmental
> agency to come after you.

Believe me, the LUG without moderation would be a total disaster. And what 
exactly has the IRS got to do with freedom of speech? :)

> logic but with better customer support, silly me! the logic forum has
> always been a bit self-righteous and i never could figure that out.

How can a forum be self-righteous? Who's the "self"? Or do you just mean 
people sometimes disagree with you?

> i 
> thought that's the only place to get help with problematic issues in
> real time.

Not the only place but yes it is such a place. However, don't expect the other 
members to fix bugs for you. (But without mderation, the list would be 
cluttered with Windows<>Mac-fights, Logic<>Cubase<>Nuendo fights and endless 
discussions about conspiracies at Apple who hate their customers, and it 
would be difficult to get your problematic issues through to anyone).

> with support, you get the lesser than treatment. i'd be grateful to
> have people explain to me what i did wrong or need to tweak a bit if
> i was the writer. seems we're really the ones doing them a favor but
> they don't have the integrity to see it that way. 

Who's "them" here? The forum or Apple? The forum has got nothing to do with 
Apple, you mean you've talked to them and they treated you badly? Because 
seeing how people spew the same problems onto the forum over and over again 
(and get offended if you try to help them locate the problem in their own 
system - in other words try to give the only help that the forum could give) 
it seems like they think the other forum members all work at Apple. 
Especially when they repeated their problems often enough and then shout 
"Nothing happens, See Apple doesn't care about us!". Then it turns out few 
people bother to send in a crash report when Logic crashes, or fill out the 
feedback form.

> hope i don't get
> censored.

Oh my God this big brother conspiracy thing is going WAY too far. 

Maurits.

I second the idea that some people get banned messages. Myself, for 
example. And totally on topic non insulting stuff. Just Logic 
thinking. I think LUG moderators are getting too close to Apple and 
they allow messages from some people (betatesters and people they 
know), but if the same thing is said by a non trusted one that´s 
banned. I had a censored complain about being censored... Still a good 
place for info.

> I second the idea that some people get banned messages.

Nobody disputed that. That's what happens in moderated lists.

> Myself, for 
> example.

Me too.

> And totally on topic non insulting stuff. Just Logic 
> thinking.

It's a big misunderstanding that it has anything to do with insults. I've seen 
a lot of insults make it past moderation. Read the list rules, there are 
clear reasons for blocking messages and the moderators will point out clearly 
the reason for blocking it, referring to the rules. And I still have to see 
the first example where blocking it had anything to do with the expressed 
opionion, rather than the fear that the posting might result in an endless 
and useless flamewar.

> I think LUG moderators are getting too close to Apple

I wish they were, because then complaining to the list WOULD be the same as 
complaining to Apple. Unfortunately this is not the case. And I wish people 
would finally realize this.

> and  
> they allow messages from some people (betatesters and people they
> know), but if the same thing is said by a non trusted one that´s
> banned.

Some people are whitelisted because it's simply too much work to moderate 
everyone. However if they post things that go against the LUG rules (which is 
not about expressing certain opinions but more about causing flamewars) 
they'll be taken off the whitelist again.

The notion that the moderators block posts because they don't like what's in 
it, is disproven by the fact that you see posts about any opinion on Logic or 
the moderators themselves, good and bad, appearing on the LUG. Even including 
the weirdest conspiracy theories about Apple. The moderators start blocking 
entire discussions when they end up going in circles, and in fact they are 
clearly stating the reason if that happens. Now if your post gets blocked, 
and you waver the explanation thinking "oh they prolly didn't like what I 
wrote" and then write about that on another list (like this one), you feed 
silly rumours like these. Like when it was claimed here that it was "only 
allowed to praise Logic 7.1, not express concerns" whereas actually the whole 
useless discussion about what 7.1 would or would not do, was closed by the 
moderators.

> I had a censored complain about being censored...

And what exactly was in it?

> Still a good  
> place for info.

Yes, and it wouldn't be if it wasn't for the moderation.

Maurits.

> Actually they DO do a good job in general, but there is an element of
> randomness too. They seem to randomly let some things through - or perhaps
> don't really check then other times they are very snippy. So I don't think
> you can draw a conclusion actually.

I can draw the conclusion that they're human. And also that they stick to 
references to the rules when moderating, not favoring personal opinions.

> You'll notice that almost nothing get censored here - except the spammers -
> in fact there were some people who complained about this list itself on
> this list. As long as it doesn't descend into chaos or insults, I don't see
> anything wrong with having an open forum.

Yes I was expecting this comparison to come up. There are a few things I'd 
like to point out though.

First of all, it may have occurred to you that LUG has 19740 members and 
Logic_Cafe has 304.

Secondly, every time the LUG moderators did let their guard down slightly, it 
resulted in a (platform-)flamewar. Rather than waiting for discussions to 
descend in total chaos, they try and prevent it, which is a good thing.

And last but not least, wasn't it you who told me in private mail to stop 
talking about something on this list just because you didn't like a joke?

Maurits.

>> the logic forum has
>> always been a bit self-righteous and i never could figure that out.
>
>
> There are a lot of great people on the LUG. I think George and Nick in 
> particular have added a very positive helpful attitude along with a 
> lot of other people. I think there are a couple of people who come off 
> as smart asses when trying to look cool, or else ridicule people a bit 
> if they ask a stupid question. Its just like in a class room where one 
> obnoxious student can make the teacher feel that the class is 
> obnoxious when its really just a single person - but a loud single person.

I second this opinion.  LUG has a LOT of great, friendly, and 
knowledgeable people.  I benefit from their knowledge every day and am 
thankful they are on the list.  You mention George and Nick and I 
agree.  I would also add several other names (but won't because I know I 
will forget many deserving names).  And I am glad we have moderators who 
are willing to volunteer their time and separate out the noise. 

I also agree that the "self-righteousness" comes from one (maybe two) 
obnoxious person.  I don't think it is a charactaristic of the whole 
list by any means.

Kind regards,
Dave

> I was personally insulted and called a liar because I didn't 
> attribute two quoted messages to anyone. I have seen other 
> stuff too. Meanwhile I have had many messages banned which I 
> felt were totally ontopic. <snip>

Sometimes people jump to conclusions on the LUG too. Just recently there was
a discussion about the new 7.1 update for Logic. One person mentioned that
they thought it was easily a dot 5 upgrade. I replied that I thought it was
worth the $20 dollars that Apple was asking, but that I didn't think it came
close to a dot 5 upgrade. Many list members were on me like flies on road
kill. With some rather snide remarks to the effect that how could I know
that without having tried it yet. Of course no one said anything to the
person that claimed it *was* a dot 5 upgrade. Anyway, I think many LUG
members just latched on to a small part of my post and jumped to
conclusions. I wasn't in any way putting down the 7.1 update. In fact I
specifically said I thought it was worth what Apple was charging. Somehow,
though, when they read that I didn't think it was a dot 5 upgrade, they got
very defensive.

I suppose that is to be expected on any list that size, and of course I
suspect many of the LUGgers have an emotional attachment to Logic that may
make them prone to overreaction when something other than a "can do no
wrong" point of view towards Logic gets expressed.

Kamm

> When other people were leaving the list and complaining about a humorless
> joke that when on for 10 messages,

That's totally rediculous (and it was more like 3 than 10). People complained 
and left the list? But they all complained to you, not to me or the list? Now 
even if that were true, it  would have helped if you had just told me that at 
the time instead of just telling me to shut up (in polite wording, but that 
didn't make much of a difference).

> I asked you politely and adult-to-adult 
> to tone it down. I didn't ban your messages at any time, like the LUG does
> daily.

As I said, that's how moderation works, and at least the LUG moderators 
explain to you why they refuse certain messages. And if the effect was really 
that terrible, wouldn't it have been more sensible to prevent the message 
from being posted?

> Nor did I ban you from the list.

Was anyone ever banned from the LUG? Moderating messages is something else 
than banning people.

> You are free to complain about now  
> publicly aren't you? I was just trying to weigh the good of the many versus
> the goods of the few. If people are trashing the list and others are saying
> they are going to leave, do I say nothing?

I find it hard to believe seeing that it was not a big deal at all (I don't 
even remember the actual joke but I've seen jokes on the LUG go on longer 
without anyone complaining or even being moderated) and nobody mentioned any 
grief on the list itself, but my real point is that LUG moderators face the 
same issue (and can make the same mistakes), and there's nothing evil about 
using the moderating system to deal with it, as long as you clearly explain 
why (and consistently follow the rules; I guess that's where it goes wrong 
sometimes, I just never had that happen to my messages; I did get moderated a 
few times but with clear motivations).

Maurits.

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Maurits van de Kamp <maurits@b...> 
wrote:
>Even including 
> the weirdest conspiracy theories about Apple. ..

one is mine LOL :-)

I´m glad to be wrong. 

regards

Yes, all this power-play, second agendas etc... exist in LUG.
It always has.
I remember getting in to a fight with Markus Fritze (6 years ago he 
used to write there)
and of course my posts got moderated.
I was not allowed an equal chance to respond.

f-erenc does not usually insult anyone.
I should say, I have not seen it.

We used to have members with
"Don't you dare to criticize my wonderful Logic" attitude.
When I used to mention a bug or a new feature of a competitor sequencer,
people kept talking about *work-arounds*.

I recently asked a question to LUG.
I got no answer. I said "This list used to be better." in another post.
Somebody kept talking about how wrong I was to say that.
My answer got moderated.

Yavuz AKYAZICI
http://yavuzakyazici.com
yavuzakyazici@...

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, YAVUZ AKYAZICI <forums@y...> wrote:
>
> I was not allowed an equal chance to respond.
> 
> > I recently asked a question to LUG.
> I got no answer. I said "This list used to be better." in another 
post.
> Somebody kept talking about how wrong I was to say that.
> My answer got moderated.
> 
> Yavuz AKYAZICI
> http://yavuzakyazici.com
> yavuzakyazici@m...

Upon occasion, at a time when I was very green at this program, I'd 
ask some pretty basic questions about different functions and get 
the "read the manual" response. The manual tells of functions lots of 
times without fully describing the how to part and that's what I'd  
be looking for (i refer to the logic 4 manual). 

Having received such a stupid response to my question, I'd try to let 
the responding party know I wasn't really wanting that kind of a 
response and I'd always get the censor from the group. I think the 
initial response to my question should have been sensored, rather 
than me trying to explain bad behavior to a full grown human being. 

Other times, the majority of which, I been given very comprehensive 
explanations to simplistic questions. 

I agree there's lots of good knowledge out there and most times good 
responses are made but when you're new to the program as well as the 
forum, that sarcastic remark digs deep. 
gary

One thing to keep in mind about all of these forums is that you get a 
preponderance of folks who post with problems. When things are going 
fine in people's studios, they are typically not going to complain, or 
post anything about it. It's the people with problems that will post. 
To complicate matters further, in about 95% of the cases of tech 
support that I do as part of my job here at IMS, it ain't the product, 
it's the person that is doing something wrong. People are very 
reluctant to do things the correct way sometimes, sometimes they are 
looking for functionality that doesn't exist, or cannot exist on their 
configuration. I often get calls from folks who are doing something on 
an unsupported or unrecommended configuration and they are very irate 
that things are not working properly. In desperation often these type 
of people will post their problems, and when they are told that it is 
them, and not the hardware/software, they get indignant. Sometimes 
people do not get any answer, there are people that think that if they 
post an issue that they are somehow 'entitled' to get an answer. These 
folks often never have anything of value to respond to when others 
post, and they do not understand the concept of community, and simply 
are looking for 'free' tech support. Many times they have not 
referenced product manuals, followed system configuration 
recommendations, contacted the manufacturer's tech support, or even 
Googled the problem. In the worst cases you find out they do not truly 
own the product and are working with a 'pirated' copy.

What is good about many of the moderated forums I've been on (like 
MOTU-Mac) is that often the moderator will filter out these type of 
folks before they become a disruption to the community.

Eddie Sullivan
Integrated Midi Systems
The Stony Brook Technology Center
21 Technology Drive
E. Setauket NY 11733
1800 344 6434 X 108

On Saturday, April 9, 2005, at 03:50 AM, Maurits van de Kamp wrote:

>
>> me only!! there is no more freedom of speech, and if you think you
>> have that right, look out for the irs or some other governmental
>> agency to come after you.
>
> Believe me, the LUG without moderation would be a total disaster. And 
> what
> exactly has the IRS got to do with freedom of speech? :)
>
>> logic but with better customer support, silly me! the logic forum has
>> always been a bit self-righteous and i never could figure that out.
>
> How can a forum be self-righteous? Who's the "self"? Or do you just 
> mean
> people sometimes disagree with you?
>
>> i
>> thought that's the only place to get help with problematic issues in
>> real time.
>
> Not the only place but yes it is such a place. However, don't expect 
> the other
> members to fix bugs for you. (But without mderation, the list would be
> cluttered with Windows<>Mac-fights, Logic<>Cubase<>Nuendo fights and 
> endless
> discussions about conspiracies at Apple who hate their customers, and 
> it
> would be difficult to get your problematic issues through to anyone).
>
>> with support, you get the lesser than treatment. i'd be grateful to
>> have people explain to me what i did wrong or need to tweak a bit if
>> i was the writer. seems we're really the ones doing them a favor but
>> they don't have the integrity to see it that way.
>
> Who's "them" here? The forum or Apple? The forum has got nothing to do 
> with
> Apple, you mean you've talked to them and they treated you badly? 
> Because
> seeing how people spew the same problems onto the forum over and over 
> again
> (and get offended if you try to help them locate the problem in their 
> own
> system - in other words try to give the only help that the forum could 
> give)
> it seems like they think the other forum members all work at Apple.
> Especially when they repeated their problems often enough and then 
> shout
> "Nothing happens, See Apple doesn't care about us!". Then it turns out 
> few
> people bother to send in a crash report when Logic crashes, or fill 
> out the
> feedback form.
>
>> hope i don't get
>> censored.
>
> Oh my God this big brother conspiracy thing is going WAY too far.
>
> Maurits.
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh my God this big brother conspiracy thing is going WAY too far.

Maurits.

In fact I
specifically said I thought it was worth what Apple was charging. Somehow,
though, when they read that I didn't think it was a dot 5 upgrade, they got
very defensive.

Hi Paul,

You wrote:

> Kamm, you're being a bit disingenuous here. What people were 
> reacting to, for the most part, was your rather snarky 
> contention that your opinion carried more weight by virtue of 
> your occupation as a programmer.

Not true! I reread those posts and the majority reacted to my statement that
it wasn't a dot 5 upgrade. I stated that I was a programmer only after
receiving two posts insinuating that I couldn't know it wasn't a dot 5
upgrade from the information available (but apparently Orren *could*
determine it was based on the same information I had).

Kamm

Kamm Schreiner wrote:

> Hi Paul,
> 
> You wrote:
> 
>>Kamm, you're being a bit disingenuous here. What people were 
>>reacting to, for the most part, was your rather snarky 
>>contention that your opinion carried more weight by virtue of 
>>your occupation as a programmer.
> 
> 
> Not true! I reread those posts and the majority reacted to my statement that
> it wasn't a dot 5 upgrade. I stated that I was a programmer only after
> receiving two posts insinuating that I couldn't know it wasn't a dot 5
> upgrade from the information available (but apparently Orren *could*
> determine it was based on the same information I had).

For what it's worth (no more than 2 cents) I, like someone else who 
mentioned this idea recently, strongly suspect that Orren and others who 
reckon it's a .5 upgrade are beta testers.

I'm actually surprized how little this possibility was mentioned in the 
discussion. Maybe it *would* have been mentioned a lot more if the LUG 
wasn't moderated? ;-)

Kamm -

> Hi Paul,
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> > Kamm, you're being a bit disingenuous here. What people were 
> > reacting to, for the most part, was your rather snarky 
> > contention that your opinion carried more weight by virtue of 
> > your occupation as a programmer.
> 
> Not true! I reread those posts and the majority reacted to my statement that
> it wasn't a dot 5 upgrade. I stated that I was a programmer only after
> receiving two posts insinuating that I couldn't know it wasn't a dot 5
> upgrade from the information available (but apparently Orren *could*
> determine it was based on the same information I had).
> 
> Kamm

Okay. Sorry if I misrepresented.

 - PH

On Apr 13, 2005, at 6:55 AM, Bill Canty wrote:

> For what it's worth (no more than 2 cents) I, like someone else who
> mentioned this idea recently, strongly suspect that Orren and others 
> who
> reckon it's a .5 upgrade are beta testers.
>

Orren doesnt really hide the fact that he IS a beta tester..
In fact he does it for quite a few companies.

---
Chris
www.descentrecords.com

Chris Coccia wrote:

> On Apr 13, 2005, at 6:55 AM, Bill Canty wrote:
>>For what it's worth (no more than 2 cents) I, like someone else who
>>mentioned this idea recently, strongly suspect that Orren and others 
>>who reckon it's a .5 upgrade are beta testers.
> 
> Orren doesnt really hide the fact that he IS a beta tester..
> In fact he does it for quite a few companies.

Ahhh, well there ya go! Was he the one who said it was more like a .5 
release? IIRC he was the one arguing with Kamm the most...

Bill Canty wrote:

>>Orren doesnt really hide the fact that he IS a beta tester..
>>In fact he does it for quite a few companies.
> 
> 
> Ahhh, well there ya go! Was he the one who said it was more like a .5 
> release? IIRC he was the one arguing with Kamm the most...
> 

That I couldnt tell ya. I try to stay away from all of that crap that 
floods the LUG, and there is an awful lot of that crap on there. I could 
care less about what point the upgrade really is. Does MY system work or 
not? Thats what I concentrate on hehe. Maybe Ill be more into it once I 
finally get my 7 upgrade hah.


-- 
Chris

http://www.descentrecords.com

When I first saw the subject topic, I thought of my early days with 
Logic and all the frustration I encountered, trying to translate the 
what Logic does explanations in the manual, to how to do it. Much of 
the time I get too much from the book so I went searching the LUG. 
Being new to the program, I'm sure the questions were very stupid 
sounding, but they were real road blocks. That's where I seen lots of 
inconsiderate remarks, as in the oldie but goodie, "read the manual" 
response.  
These type of responses serve nothing more than fill the void inside 
some insecure mind with a distorted sense of value. On occasion, I'd 
try to let the responder know that, but my response to the sarcastic 
remark would be censored. That always confused me. 

The forum is a great idea and would be best served if everybody put 
constructive effort into their responses to what may appear to be 
trivial, or just leave it alone. Somebody will come along and help.
Gary

I just tried to point Apple's and Emagic's wrong doing in a polite way,
LUG moderator did not approve the message.
I unsubscribed from LUG.
I am very close to swearing off Apple and Emagic.
I am going to give it a few days to calm my self down.
I hate hypocrisy.
This guy Jeremy Martin is so ignorant, he does not even spell my name 
right.

I am glad this is a more democratic forum.

There was a time in New York when a homeless guy was arrested
because he cursed at a Police Officer.
The judge let him go and pointed out that he was happy that
the homeless was exercising his right of freedom of speech.

I understand the forums should stay on topic.
I would not want to see 2 guys debating over how unfair it is to give 
Julia Roberts an Oscar.
However, this is directly on the subject and related to Apple and 
Emagic.

Too bad.
They could only make their software or support better if they listened 
to their customers
instead of pointing fingers at each other (Apple and Emagic).

Yavuz AKYAZICI
http://yavuzakyazici.com
yavuzakyazici@...

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, YAVUZ AKYAZICI wrote:

> I just tried to point Apple's and Emagic's wrong doing in a polite way,
> LUG moderator did not approve the message.
> I unsubscribed from LUG.
> I am very close to swearing off Apple and Emagic.
> I am going to give it a few days to calm my self down.

Speaking as someone who's gone through a few corporate mergers, I can tell 
you that there's usually a long, long period of adjustment when it comes 
to the support staff.  The bigger the companies, the worse the confusion.  
I've had to deal with people calling me for support about products I 
didn't even know we made, over a year after the merger.  It's poor 
interorganizational communication that's behind it.

I'm guessing Emagic and Apple haven't worked out who does what in terms of
customer support, since on the grand scale of Apple's software and
hardware base, there are probably a lot more calls about OS X printing
problems than there are about Logic, especially older versions, so it's
not a top priority.  It's probably even worse if they've outsourced their
front-level support, because then you get some guy who is familiar with
all the basics but has no clue about anything specific.  I spent 3 hours
on the phone with Dell once trying to convince some outsourced support guy
that my brand-new Dell laptop's bluetooth adapter was in fact a factory
component and no, I shouldn't be calling Intel about it.  That sort of 
thing is a nightmare.

Tech support is troublesome even in the best case.  The easiest way I've
found to deal with ths fingerpointing is to document everything.  Get
support peoples' names and extensions, and if they redirect you to
somewhere else, ask for specific contact information for that redirect so
you can be sure that the support guy isn't just tyring to pass you off to
close the call and up his personal rating.  Then, if calling the new
support people, tell them you were referred specifically to the new people
by person x at extension1234 so if they aren't the right person either,
they can pinpoint the communication failure.  Keep hounding them for a
specific name for support, and if they don't give you a straight answer
(i.e. "just call apple's main number") then ask to speak to a manager and
start all over again.  It's furstrating, but basically if you're dilligent
enough you'll either get where you need to go or become enough of a
problem to the support staff that they'll address your issue just to make
you stop.  This procedure has worked well for me on many occasions.


_______________________________________________________
Eric Oehler / wonko@... / www.nulldevice.com
Synthetic music for synthetic people.

> I just tried to point Apple's and Emagic's wrong doing in a polite way,
> LUG moderator did not approve the message.

What exactly did you write? Anything we haven't heared a thousand times 
before? And not filled with wild ideas about what Apple "probably" does and 
"probably" thinks of us? Just curious. :o)

> I am glad this is a more democratic forum.

It's just unmoderated, that's all.

> There was a time in New York when a homeless guy was arrested
> because he cursed at a Police Officer.
> The judge let him go and pointed out that he was happy that
> the homeless was exercising his right of freedom of speech.

I find freedom of speech is too often used as an excuse for verbal abuse. 
Besides, that has nothing to do with moderating a forum (that clearly states 
from the start that it's moderated).

> I understand the forums should stay on topic.

And the topic is "Apple's wrongdoing"? Maybe people subscribing to the list 
for actual help and advice from fellow users get tired of that subject by 
now? In case you hadn't noticed already, "Apple's wrong doing" has been 
pointed out over and over and over and over again (actually, the moderators 
apparantly let it through!) and there's no one reading the list that can do 
anything about it. You want to complain, complain to Apple.

> However, this is directly on the subject and related to Apple and
> Emagic.

But, did it contain any useful information?

> Too bad.
> They could only make their software or support better if they listened
> to their customers

Hre we go again.. LUG is NOT APPLE!!!!!!

> instead of pointing fingers at each other (Apple and Emagic).

Emagic doesn't exist anymore and the team IS now Apple, there's no one to 
point a finger at.

Sorry, I agree the moderators are sometimes out of line, but I'm getting SO 
SICK of this opressed-peasant-stuff and the wanking about 
we're-so-damn-good-with-our-democratic forums. And to think someone called 
LUG selfrighteous.

There, you wanted freedom of speech? Here it is.

Maurits.

Hi Maurits,

Judging from your replies, I guess your beef is with people with beefs? ;)

Please don't be angry with me. I'm just trying to lighten it up a little.
I'm sure you must realize that Yavuz had a legitimately bad experience.
Personally I'm happy to let him vent a little. I know I would have been
*very* upset had I been in his shoes. I have a suspicion that you would have
been too.

Hoping I'm not going to draw the wrath of Kahn upon myself,

Kamm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Maurits van de Kamp
> Sent: 04/20/2005 12:46 PM
> To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Logic_Cafe] Re: What you can't say on LUG
> 
> 
> > I just tried to point Apple's and Emagic's wrong doing in a polite 
> > way, LUG moderator did not approve the message.
> 
> What exactly did you write? Anything we haven't heared a 
> thousand times before? And not filled with wild ideas about 
> what Apple "probably" does and "probably" thinks of us? Just 
> curious. :o)
> 
> > I am glad this is a more democratic forum.
> 
> It's just unmoderated, that's all.
> 
> > There was a time in New York when a homeless guy was 
> arrested because 
> > he cursed at a Police Officer.
> > The judge let him go and pointed out that he was happy that the 
> > homeless was exercising his right of freedom of speech.
> 
> I find freedom of speech is too often used as an excuse for 
> verbal abuse. 
> Besides, that has nothing to do with moderating a forum (that 
> clearly states from the start that it's moderated).
> 
> > I understand the forums should stay on topic.
> 
> And the topic is "Apple's wrongdoing"? Maybe people 
> subscribing to the list for actual help and advice from 
> fellow users get tired of that subject by now? In case you 
> hadn't noticed already, "Apple's wrong doing" has been 
> pointed out over and over and over and over again (actually, 
> the moderators apparantly let it through!) and there's no one 
> reading the list that can do anything about it. You want to 
> complain, complain to Apple.
> 
> > However, this is directly on the subject and related to Apple and 
> > Emagic.
> 
> But, did it contain any useful information?
> 
> > Too bad.
> > They could only make their software or support better if 
> they listened 
> > to their customers
> 
> Hre we go again.. LUG is NOT APPLE!!!!!!
> 
> > instead of pointing fingers at each other (Apple and Emagic).
> 
> Emagic doesn't exist anymore and the team IS now Apple, 
> there's no one to point a finger at.
> 
> Sorry, I agree the moderators are sometimes out of line, but 
> I'm getting SO SICK of this opressed-peasant-stuff and the 
> wanking about we're-so-damn-good-with-our-democratic forums. 
> And to think someone called LUG selfrighteous.
> 
> There, you wanted freedom of speech? Here it is.
> 
> Maurits.
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> --------------------~--> What would our lives be like without 
> music, dance, and theater?
> Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/rKxVKC/SOnJAA/n1hLAA/JPJolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------~-> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>

> Judging from your replies, I guess your beef is with people with beefs? ;)

:o) Actually I'm not at all like that. You must have noticed how friendly all 
my other mails are. :o)

> Please don't be angry with me. I'm just trying to lighten it up a little.

Me too, I hope you can see the irony in my excercise of freedom of speech. :o)

> I'm sure you must realize that Yavuz had a legitimately bad experience.

No, I can't realize that until I actually saw what he wrote. If he had 
anything new to add to all the sad stories I've already read on LUG then yes, 
maybe it should have been posted. But I can't tell that from just "I tried to 
point out Apple's wrongdoing and got moderated".

> Personally I'm happy to let him vent a little.

Ok, but I just wanted to vent too. :o) There's just too much "empty" 
complaints like these going round, making the already existing grudges only 
deeper. And that's what annoys me about the LUG-venting that ends up here. 
(Not that I want it moderated here, but I WILL reply to it) :o)

> I know I would have been 
> *very* upset had I been in his shoes. I have a suspicion that you would
> have been too.

Again, it depends on what he was trying to say (and I wonder why he didn't 
post it to this list, to back up his complaint AND make the point that we now 
apparantly sadly miss). I see no reason why I would be upset, for all I know 
now. I've had a few of my postings moderated too, sure at first glance it 
ticks you off, but then you read the explanation why and it all makes sense. 
However, with all the sad-underdog-postings here, there is never any argument 
given against the moderator's explanation - in fact, the moderator's 
explanation is totally left out of the discussion (and hence most likely 
ignored). Instead there is just the (more popular) suspicion that the 
moderators are trying to block certain opinions, which they obviously are not 
since I've read the anti-Apple stories a gazillion times on LUG.

Just discarding the moderators arguments AND complaining about them somewhere 
where they don't see it, is no basis for a discussion. At least tell us what 
you said that got moderated, tell us why the moderators claimed they 
moderated it, and why you disagree. (And in fact, if you really have sensible 
arguments against the moderator's arguments, you can write it to the 
moderator in question too, but don't expect to get taken seriously if you 
stuff it full of unfounded accusations and personal attacks).

> Hoping I'm not going to draw the wrath of Kahn upon myself,

"You will die, of sophocation, in the icey cold of space." :o) No, as you see 
I answer real arguments with real arguments. I'm not angry with Yavuz either. 
Just when arguments fade away and get replaced by emotions to get people on 
one's side, I like to give a wakeup call. :o)

Maurits.

> 
> :o) Actually I'm not at all like that. You must have noticed how 
friendly all 
> my other mails are. :o)


How'd they manage to leave you out of the equation when they went about 
picking the new pope?  You should at least be a dictator of a small 
country or something.
Gary

> How'd they manage to leave you out of the equation when they went about
> picking the new pope?  You should at least be a dictator of a small
> country or something.

Well Gary, you're obviously the perfect example of tolerance. Notice however 
that, contrary to you, I don't drag personal attacks into discussions if I 
run out of arguments (but I will respond to them as I do now, albeit without 
calling people dictators).

And now that our nice friend Gary HAS dragged personal attacks into the 
discussion, we will soon see how nice it is that this list is not moderated 
when the mud-throwing continues. Until the owner mails someone privately to 
ask them to stop talking about this of course, and that someone will probably 
be me because it's my fault for not agreeing to the official opinion of the 
list ("LUG moderators and Apple suck").

Maurits.

Op Wednesday 20 April 2005 20:22, schreef GAmoore@...:

> By the way, the newest problem is that when my computer wakes from sleep,
> there is no USB power, so the battery and mouse don't work. So I have to
> powerdown the whole machine. But it only happens when I have the UAudio
> board in, and only when I boot from my second hard drive. Anyone experience
> that?

Sound like something you can ask on the LUG too ;o) Is that internal power 
from the computer?

> > And that's what annoys me about the LUG-venting that ends up here.
>
> Thats because LUG is pretty thoroughly moderated.

Well the kind of venting I was talking about (ignoring real arguments and 
coming with critisism based on suspicions) is indeed most likely moderated, 
and rightfully so. Besides, critisism about specific moderations should be 
sent to the moderator, where they will be of much more use.

> Maybe we need different 
> lists for different purposes. Thats kind of the idea of the Logic Cafe - if
> you want to come and just say whatever is on your mind - you have a place
> (within reason of course).

That idea is very good, but I have a feeling it's not really all that open, 
but more just an opposite. (Sure it's not moderated, but oh beware those who 
do not post according to the lists' opinion..) And I've never been in favor 
of fighting fire with fire.

Maurits.

> I really don't understand why you keep making direct or indirect negative
> comments toward me.

Ok that was out of line too. I didn't want to direct it at you (the first time 
I did because I did think, and still think, that it was totally unreasonable 
but I made that point so that's done), I just wanted to point out that the 
list isn't as open as everyone claims to be. No forum is, moderated or not, 
and it shouldn't be. It's not critisism meant for you, what I meant to point 
out is that if one starts throwing mud, one will eventually either be 
moderated or end at another dead stop. People just use the classification 
"open" and "tolerant" without really knowing what it implies.

> Its about the 3rd or 4th time. And in keeping with my 
> philosphy of openess I let you criticize me and don't respond in kind.

Actually you do :o) And that's good, openess doesn't mean "not responding". 
Just as that disagreeing isn't the same as not allowing someone his opinion.

> Its 
> sad that you don't appreciate the tolerance shown here.

I appreciate the tolerance as far as it is here, I'm just saying out that 
LUG/Logic_Cafe is not as black&white evil/good as people make it seem here 
and that tolerance is never endless. Whether your message gets stopped by 
technical means or the sender just gets abused in response, doesn't really 
make a difference in the end.

> Lets do a little 
> experiment. Why don't you get on the LUG and criticize the LUG moderators
> (and make sure to name one of them like you have named me in the past) and
> make up some BS LUG "official opinion" - and lets see if they even let that
> message through or if you get banned for life?

What exactly is that supposed to prove? Of course the message won't get 
through. My point was that personal attacks suck, and hence they will be 
moderated if possible. Logic_Cafe isn't moderated so they can't be stopped 
before they're posted, but still if mudthrowing begins, somehow it 
will/should be stopped in other ways (that's good!) because - and this is 
what people keep forgetting - it's not all that nice if people "just say 
anything", no matter how politically correct it may sound.

On every unmoderated forum personal attack circles show up from time to time 
and by their nature prove the point of the LUG- or any other group's- 
moderators to ban personal attacks, whether aimed at themselves or anyone 
else.

> If you are so certain, then 
> you won't mind risking ever being on the LUG again would you?

Certain about what? I'm still puzzled what you want to prove with this.

Maurits.

On Apr 20, 2005, at 12:45 PM, Maurits van de Kamp wrote:

>
>> I just tried to point Apple's and Emagic's wrong doing in a polite 
>> way,
>> LUG moderator did not approve the message.
>
> What exactly did you write? Anything we haven't heared a thousand times
> before? And not filled with wild ideas about what Apple "probably" 
> does and
> "probably" thinks of us? Just curious. :o)

Are you really curious or you just want to pick a few points to grill 
me.
You sound very very opinionated towards people who criticize LUG 
moderators.
Why ask about what I wrote and then write all these long paragraphs 
before asking what it was?
I am sick of hypocrisy.

> I find freedom of speech is too often used as an excuse for verbal 
> abuse.

There is no such thing.
Ben Harper:
"If you don't like my fire, don't come around,
'cause, I'm gonna burn one down."
(As in if you do not like my post don't read it. Where is the abuse?
Bosses can abuse their employees. Or husbands and wives.
They have to live together until abuse is unbearable.)

It is the moderators who find kind excuses to protect Apple at the 
expense of preventing
people like me from expressing our selves freely.
I did not like their fire so I will stay away.

> And the topic is "Apple's wrongdoing"? Maybe people subscribing to the 
> list
> for actual help and advice from fellow users get tired of that subject 
> by
> now?

Yes it is and it should be heard.
They could listen and make their support better and Logic better.
Turning the deaf ear won't help.
You can tell me that they are not reading those forums.
Then it's really their fault.
They are the owner of Logic.
It should still be allowed for people to have an idea.
Knowing about Apple's bad support is useful to everyone and potential 
buyers.
You should check out Cubase Forum at times.
They are a lot more welcoming for criticism.
Why do you think that is?

> But, did it contain any useful information?

Yes, it did.
I mentioned me saying "You own this product and you should activate it."
At the end, it was activated.
May be next person in the same situation will say the same thing to get 
activation codes.
People could have given up and lost their Logic 6 Upgrade A money.
I came very close to it.
Some dealer is still selling them at Ebay.
Check it out.
Logic Platinum to pro upgrade for Logic 6.
If they are not sold, they will go back to Apple for refund for the 
dealer.
I helped Apple to keep their money.

> Hre we go again.. LUG is NOT APPLE!!!!!!

I can not believe you are so ignorant.
I have ben following LUG since version 2.5.
I know what is what.
People used to say "This is not the bug-report forum." at Emagic times.
However, it did help for a lot of bug fixes.
Sometimes, even people from Emagic (like Markus or Sascha) learned 
about the bugs there.
Then, they made use of it and made Logic better.
That is what the list is about as well as answering questions.
You either help someone who does not know how to do a certain thing
or... You can point out weak points of the software (support is one of 
them)
so people can make it better.

> Emagic doesn't exist anymore and the team IS now Apple, there's no one 
> to
> point a finger at.

Well, that is not what Apple tech said.
He said "Emagic should take care of support for version 6."
What is that if not pointing fingers?
Are you not reading my post?
What does the point of above sentence if it has any.

> Sorry, I agree the moderators are sometimes out of line, but I'm 
> getting SO
> SICK of this opressed-peasant-stuff and the wanking about
> we're-so-damn-good-with-our-democratic forums.

opressed-peasant-stuff?
What are you talking about?
Do you live in the moon?

>  And to think someone called
> LUG selfrighteous.
>
> There, you wanted freedom of speech? Here it is.

Yes, that is what I want.
Your answer is above.
If it bothers anyone, they should read the next post.

Yavuz AKYAZICI
http://yavuzakyazici.com
yakyazici@...

YAVUZ AKYAZICI wrote:

> 
>     What exactly did you write? Anything we haven't heared a thousand times
>     before? And not filled with wild ideas about what Apple "probably"
>     does and
>     "probably" thinks of us? Just curious. :o)
> 
> 
> Are you really curious or you just want to pick a few points to grill me.
> You sound very very opinionated towards people who criticize LUG 
> moderators.
> Why ask about what I wrote and then write all these long paragraphs 
> before asking what it was?
> I am sick of hypocrisy.
> 

You know its actually this kind of crap that is the reason the LUG is so 
tightly moderated.. How many responses to this thread have we seen 
already today??
Arent any of you working on music or are we just here to debate the so 
called 'oppression' or the LUG and the policies of Apple Computer? I 
never thought of starting a maillist to discuss the policies of another 
maillist, which now that I think about it, is actually the reason this 
one was started in the first place isnt it?

-- 
Chris

http://www.descentrecords.com

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, YAVUZ AKYAZICI wrote:

> > Hre we go again.. LUG is NOT APPLE!!!!!!
> 
> I can not believe you are so ignorant.
> I have ben following LUG since version 2.5.
> I know what is what.
> People used to say "This is not the bug-report forum." at Emagic times.
> However, it did help for a lot of bug fixes.

That doesn't mean it's Apple. Or Emagic.  All it means is we got lucky 
that someone form that comapny took an interest in an independent group.

> That is what the list is about as well as answering questions. You
> either help someone who does not know how to do a certain thing or...
> You can point out weak points of the software (support is one of them)
> so people can make it better.
>
Maybe, but that doesn't mean that the list is affiliated with Apple.  The
reasoning is a little flawed there.  (If it were a real apple list, then
they could do a helluva lot better job of moderating it to protect their
own interests.)  It's veyr nice that people like Markus read the list and 
take it as feedback, but they're under no obligation to do so nor is the 
company.  It may be in their interests from time to time to read it, but 
frankly it's a lot of resources consumed to monitor it and they do have an 
official bug-tracking form which I'm guessing takes precendent over a 
bunch of people speculating about what Soundtrack Pro's plugins will do.

(also, technically, we have no freedom of speech here either.  SInce this 
is a yahoo list we're bound by the conditions of the user agreement and if 
they decided hey, you can't say the word "semprini" on the list, then we'd 
have no real recourse).

_______________________________________________________
Eric Oehler / wonko@... / www.nulldevice.com
Synthetic music for synthetic people.

On Apr 20, 2005, at 4:52 PM, Chris Coccia wrote:
> You know its actually this kind of crap that is the reason the LUG is 
> so
> tightly moderated.. How many responses to this thread have we seen
> already today??

Well we did not see any other questions either.
Why don't you ask if you have any other questions and someone might 
answer.

I had a problem before and I asked. Someone answered.
I followed the advice and ran into other problems.
I made them heard so somebody else could do things different.
Or... If anybody is trying to buy v6 upgrade, they may think twice if 
they don't want problems.
Or, last but not the least, they can avoid the whole Apple/Emagic thing 
altogether.
Or, not.
It would be up to them. Right?

On Apr 20, 2005, at 4:52 PM, Chris Coccia wrote:

> Arent any of you working on music or are we just here to debate the so
> called 'oppression' or the LUG and the policies of Apple Computer?

Recently started working again.
I was not able to before since all of my demos had expired.

What are you working on?
Post some examples may be we can hear it.
Always curious to hear new music.
BTW, This is not a sarcastic question.

Yavuz AKYAZICI
http://yavuzakyazici.com
yakyazici@...

> Are you really curious or you just want to pick a few points to grill
> me.

I was really curious.

> You sound very very opinionated towards people who criticize LUG
> moderators.

I'm trying to compensate for the opinionation the other way around. Before I 
can agree or disagree with any kind of moderation, doesn't it seem logical 
that I'd like to see what we're talking about here?

> Why ask about what I wrote and then write all these long paragraphs
> before asking what it was?

It was an explanation of why I asked.

> I am sick of hypocrisy.

Me too, that's my whole point.

> (As in if you do not like my post don't read it. Where is the abuse?

I didn't mean your post, I was talking about your example with the homeless 
guy.

> It is the moderators who find kind excuses to protect Apple at the
> expense of preventing
> people like me from expressing our selves freely.

And THAT is the lie that I'm trying to fight. It's been proven over and over 
again, they do NOT protect Apple because all those stories about bad bad 
Apple HAVE MADE IT TO THE LIST lots and lots of times!!!!! But every time a 
post DOES get moderated, people come and complain that they can't express 
some opinions. That's why I ask, what was the real reason according to the 
moderators? But you obviously don't want to say.

> I did not like their fire so I will stay away.

I don't care. I subscribe to the list for information and that's what I get, 
and since it takes up 90% of my email traffic I don't mind a bit of filtering 
when the purpose of providing hints, tips and help about Logic is defeated.

> > And the topic is "Apple's wrongdoing"? Maybe people subscribing to the
>
> Yes it is and it should be heard.

I have heard it over and over again.

> They could listen and make their support better and Logic better.

Search through the archives, this point has been made on the LUG lots and lots 
of times. This proves two points:

1. The idea that the moderators won't let this opinion through is a lie
2. If the moderator's argument was that this has been stated often enough, he 
is actually right.

> Turning the deaf ear won't help.

Telling the same thing over and over makes people deaf.

> You can tell me that they are not reading those forums.

Why would they have to read every single Logic forum there is? Besides, if 
they WERE reading the forum, they would have stopped taking it seriously when 
all the totally rediculous Apple conspiracy theories were posted (allowed by 
the moderators!!) following the release of Logic 7. The list looked like a 
group of ranting children.

> It should still be allowed for people to have an idea.

And who says it isn't?

> Knowing about Apple's bad support is useful to everyone and potential
> buyers.

Yes and we've heard it and heard it and heard it.

> You should check out Cubase Forum at times.
> They are a lot more welcoming for criticism.

Are you totally blind or just reading selectively? Search the gmane archives 
for "support" and see how much critisism the LUG allows.

> Why do you think that is?

Why? Because LUG moderators are evil and Cubase forum moderators are Gods?

> Yes, it did.
> I mentioned me saying 
(...)

I can't follow this at all.. why don't you just post the entire message here 
so we can all benifit from it?

> > Hre we go again.. LUG is NOT APPLE!!!!!!
>
> I can not believe you are so ignorant.

Ignorance is complaining to a user group, repeating the complaint over and 
over again, and then say the software company is not listening to you.

> I have ben following LUG since version 2.5.
> I know what is what.
> People used to say "This is not the bug-report forum." at Emagic times.
> However, it did help for a lot of bug fixes.

Because some people take things they read on the list to Apple support - 
something you can do yourself.

> Well, that is not what Apple tech said.
> He said "Emagic should take care of support for version 6."

Well then tell him Emagic doesn't exist anymore.

> > Sorry, I agree the moderators are sometimes out of line, but I'm
> > getting SO
> > SICK of this opressed-peasant-stuff and the wanking about
> > we're-so-damn-good-with-our-democratic forums.
>
> opressed-peasant-stuff?
> What are you talking about?
> Do you live in the moon?

I'm talking about turning every blocked post into an excuse of saying "ooh 
they just don't want us to critisize" when actually you can see the same 
critisisms making it to the list many times before, and then going into the 
"we can't say what we want", "there's no freedom of speech" and "I'm not 
allowed to have an opinion" kinds of speeches which are totally misguided. 
(The analogy being "we're just lowly peasants and the LUG moderators have all 
the power").

Maurits.

Op Wednesday 20 April 2005 22:52, schreef Chris Coccia:

> I
> never thought of starting a maillist to discuss the policies of another
> maillist, which now that I think about it, is actually the reason this
> one was started in the first place isnt it?

You read my mind. :)

Maurits.

On Apr 20, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Maurits van de Kamp wrote:

>
>> Are you really curious or you just want to pick a few points to grill
>> me.
>
> I was really curious.

Well then read my last post about XS-Key authorization problems.
It is there (Almost the same post). Most of it anyways.

> I'm trying to compensate for the opinionation the other way around. 
> Before I
> can agree or disagree with any kind of moderation, doesn't it seem 
> logical
> that I'd like to see what we're talking about here?

Yes, but you wrote most of your conclusions before reading the original.

>> It is the moderators who find kind excuses to protect Apple at the
>> expense of preventing
>> people like me from expressing our selves freely.
>
> And THAT is the lie that I'm trying to fight. It's been proven over 
> and over
> again, they do NOT protect Apple because all those stories about bad 
> bad
> Apple HAVE MADE IT TO THE LIST lots and lots of times!!!!!

I have not seen this for the past 6 months.
I will do another search.
My search of XS-Key authorizations did not return any of my exact 
problem.

> Are you totally blind or just reading selectively? Search the gmane 
> archives
> for "support" and see how much critisism the LUG allows.
>
>> Why do you think that is?
>
> Why? Because LUG moderators are evil and Cubase forum moderators are 
> Gods?

I am sorry but that IS childish analogy.
You must know I meant they are smarter to listen to their customers.
It helps them make more money.

>>> we go again.. LUG is NOT APPLE!!!!!!
>>
>> I can not believe you are so ignorant.
>
> Ignorance is complaining to a user group, repeating the complaint over 
> and
> over again, and then say the software company is not listening to you.

That would be true only if I had done just that.
My XS-Key search did not bring up any results.
Even though Apple's bad support might have been mentioned before,
my strategy of talking to them was not.
It could help someone.
It sure helped me to get what I want.
Your ignorance starts when you do not read between my lines to 
understand this
but manipulate my post to help you prove your point.

>
>> I have ben following LUG since version 2.5.
>> I know what is what.
>> People used to say "This is not the bug-report forum." at Emagic 
>> times.
>> However, it did help for a lot of bug fixes.
>
> Because some people take things they read on the list to Apple support 
> -
> something you can do yourself.

Yes, but then again most potential Logic buyers or Logic 6 platinum 
users
do not read there. My post was for them not for Apple even though
Apple might benefit from it if they had read it.

>> Well, that is not what Apple tech said.
>> He said "Emagic should take care of support for version 6."
>
> Well then tell him Emagic doesn't exist anymore.

I did. You can try the same thing
The number is 800 275 2273.
They still say otherwise.

Yavuz AKYAZICI
http://yavuzakyazici.com
yakyazici@...

YAVUZ AKYAZICI wrote:

> What are you working on?
> Post some examples may be we can hear it.
> Always curious to hear new music.
> BTW, This is not a sarcastic question.
> 
> Yavuz AKYAZICI
> http://yavuzakyazici.com
> yakyazici@...
> 

All points well understood Yavuz. Nothing personal against you, just the 
amount of redundant traffic that seems to get generated everytime theres 
a discussion on this..
As for music, well it aint anything worth bragging about but you can go 
to the site in my signature and have at it.. Keep in mind I havent 
worked on anything electronic actively in a couple years or so, which is 
what most of the stuff there is.. Hopefully the 'metal' project will be 
back up and online soon once Im finished getting local bands out of the 
way and I can actually get to finishing my own work!!


-- 
Chris

http://www.descentrecords.com

> Yes, but you wrote most of your conclusions before reading the original.

Well I was talking about these posts in general, most of which don't include 
the actual posts that they are about. I didn't just mean your case 
specifically. You just kinda sparked my annoyance about this. :o)

> My search of XS-Key authorizations did not return any of my exact
> problem.

Ok at least now I know what it was about. So why was it blocked (according to 
the moderators)?

> >> Why do you think that is?
> >
> > Why? Because LUG moderators are evil and Cubase forum moderators are
> > Gods?
>
> I am sorry but that IS childish analogy.
> You must know I meant they are smarter to listen to their customers.
> It helps them make more money.

I don't know which Cubase forum you mean (but somehow I doubt it has anything 
to do with Steinberg any more than LUG has to do with Apple), but LUG 
moderation has nothing to do with Apple listening to their customers. LUG is 
not Apple. Even if some bugreports posted to the LUG make it to them every 
now and then. LUG is not Apple, it is not Emagic, it is an amator Yahoo group 
for users to share information. Allowing or blocking posts has got nothing to 
do with Apple listening to customers.

> Your ignorance starts when you do not read between my lines to
> understand this

It might help if you would just state actual facts, instead of hiding them 
between the lines and only writing emotional reactions to your being 
moderated.

> but manipulate my post to help you prove your point.

For my points I don't need to manipulate your post. They simply are:

1. Critisisms are not blocked just because they're critisisms
2. Whether LUG blocks posts or not has got nothing to do with Apple being 
willing to listen to their customers or not
3. If you want to make claims about the way LUG is moderated, your claim only 
makes sense if you show what was moderated, and show the moderator's comment. 
I'm not saying they're always right. I'm just saying it takes more to prove 
them wrong than just saying "they're wrong".

> Yes, but then again most potential Logic buyers or Logic 6 platinum
> users
> do not read there.

Neither do they read the LUG. And support for old Logic versions isn't really 
an issue when you plan to buy a new one. However, I agree a post like that 
could be important, but after 3 mails from you I still don't know what you 
wrote and why the moderators (claimed they) blocked it. So this discussion 
still didn't get much above the "LUG is bad because they moderated me"-level. 
I am still curious, but if you really just do this because you enjoy 
complaining, don't let me spoil your fun.

Maurits.

> However, as noted here, it has its problem.

Problems that will not get solved by heating each other up with unfounded 
though popular statements.

> One 
> reason the topic of the LUG problems comes up is because this is probably 
the 
> only place where you CAN discuss these things.

The only proper place to discuss your personal grudge with a moderator, is the 
moderator's mailbox.

> If you want a better list, make a
> better list. Contribute. Help others. Ask interesting questions.

That's what I'm trying. :o) I'd love to take the list over the whine-level 
(and if someone gives some useful information about a blocked post, I'd love 
to help put a finger on why it was blocked). And if I see a Logic question 
asked here I give as much effort providing a useful answer as wehn it is 
asked in LUG. (But I don't really see why I would ask a Logic question here 
instead of LUG myself though..)

And indeed I did not get a gun pointed to my head to join this list. The only 
reason I'm still on it is that some useful info ends up here instead of LUG. 
(Although the useful info would have made it to LUG as well if it would have 
been posted there, but well there you go).

Maurits.

On Apr 20, 2005, at 5:37 PM, GAmoore@... wrote:

> in short be a part of the solution rather than a whiner. At least this 
> place allows you the opportunity to whine. And yes, its unmoderated, 
> but that could be changed with a few mouse clicks, as could someone 
> being banned. But I don't want to get into those negative things and 
> keep hoping for the best out of people. If you want a better list, 
> make a better list. Contribute. Help others. Ask interesting 
> questions.

I could not have said it any better.
I celebrate and support your approach since it encourages to speak our 
minds freely.

Thanks for having a list such this.
I welcome Maurits's ideas too.
He sure sounds like he believes in them.
THey may be opposite of what I am thinking but It's OK.
We get to DISCUSS it.
That is important.
Now we are getting somewhere with this topic I think.

Yavuz AKYAZICI
http://yavuzakyazici.com
yakyazici@...

On Apr 20, 2005, at 5:59 PM, Maurits van de Kamp wrote:

>
>> My search of XS-Key authorizations did not return any of my exact
>> problem.
>
> Ok at least now I know what it was about. So why was it blocked 
> (according to
> the moderators)?

Jeremy Martin ( a guy I used to like 2 years ago) said... :

"While we all agree Apple needs to take responsibility for Logic 
support (and as far as we know, they do still have to support Logic Pro 
6), and while we agree they apparently have some poorly trained support 
people (at least unaware of the whole Emagic situation), we feel that 
complaining about this on the LUG is unnecessary. It's Apple who should 
hear your complaints, not thousands of fellow Logic users in the same 
boat as you. "

While this looks innocent, It is one way.
They decide what is appropriate arbitrarily.
I think it is necessary.
What I think does not matter.
He was so ignorant he even spelled my name wrong.
I must have replied dozens of his posts over 6 years.
He may not have been there that long but he was there at least a few 
years or more.
I knew his name.
It is not that important but it shows how quickly he decided/read etc...

I wanted other people to know what happened.
I wanted to let them know what kind of strategy they should have 
talking to Apple since I got what I wanted from them.
Why is this so wrong or inappropriate?

I think it is politics, hypocrisy etc...
I don't like it.

Yavuz AKYAZICI
http://yavuzakyazici.com
yakyazici@...

Hi,

> As for music, well it aint anything worth bragging about but you
can go 
> to the site in my signature and have at it.. Keep in mind I havent 
> worked on anything electronic actively in a couple years or so,
which is 
> what most of the stuff there is.. Hopefully the 'metal' project
will be 
> back up and online soon once Im finished getting local bands out of
the 
> way and I can actually get to finishing my own work!!


I like your electronic stuff.
I heard Goagothfuckdub, Medicated Reflux, Noodle Masters.

If you check my site ( http://yavuzakyazici.com ) and go to the music
section,
You can hear some of my music.
Drummer Aaron Johnston is on most of them.
He plays some similar music to yoour electronic stuff.
The weird part is, he plays some drumming live that is meant to be
programmed only. :-)
He is that fast.
He plays with a band called "Brasilian Girls' now.
They were number 1 download at iTunes store 2 months ago.
I liked his jazz playing but I can not hire him any more. :-)

You can here his drumming here;
http://yavuzakyazici.com/music/Halay.mp3

and here;
http://yavuzakyazici.com/music/Lost%20in%20the%20City.mp3

Yavuz AKYAZICI
http://yavuzakyazici.com