> James Jarvie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Also, just to weigh in on the previous debate.
> Yes, I
> > have a computer. No, I cannot burn CDs (older
> > computer not fast enough - can't afford / justify
> the
> > cost to get a new one). Still, I think if we are
> > going to debate this issue, that it must be
> granted
> > that anyone considering using MP3s has the
> neccessary
> > gear, and that it shouldn't be factored into the
> cost equation.
>
> I'm going to have to disagree, here. By your own
> statement, above, you have
> obviously considered using MP3s, but have already
> factored cost into the
> equation. To wit, you yourself say "older computer
> not fast enough - can't
> afford/justify the cost to get a new one". And in
> an earlier paragraph, you
> note that you also can't justify the cost of the
> Expanium kit.
>
> In other words, you really can't take the cost
> factor into consideration for
> your personal debate, and then decry the same factor
> in the overall debate.
>
> - --
> Mike Burger
You really can't use my example as an argument to
disprove what I said. The reason is (and I didn't
make this clear): if I could afford to buy a new
computer so I could burn CDs, I still wouldn't be
burning MP3s. Now if you were arguing the relative
cost of CDRs vs. MD - that would work. I am not into
MP3s - couldn't are less about them. I still maintain
that most people get into MP3s after they have bought
a computer, but don't buy a computer so they can
download MP3s.
Who would want to listen to MP3s anway. MD is so much
more wonderful, and so much sexier.
JMJ
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
