Even yet another bass question: short scale vs. long

I have finally made the decision to buy a bass. I am looking at getting a Jetglow Rickenbacker 3000. It’s a short scale bass.
Am I, uh, short-changing myself by not getting a long scale bass?

If you seriously can’t handle a long scale because of your hand size, then that’s what the short scales are for. Sure, there’s a slight difference in timbre between a, say, 34" (standard long-scale) and a 32" (perhaps medium scale) and a 30" (which is the smallest a bass should be), but, unless you’re playing some hard-core sessions where the ultimate in top-notch perfection must be observed, it shouldn’t matter that much. I believe Carol Kaye played (and plays) a short scale, and, look at her; she’s the most recorded bassist in history. A good amp helps as well with a bass’s sound. But, if I were given the choice and ability to play either a short or a long, I would go for a long…

Carol has a great site at www.carolkaye.com as well.

Another thing: Long scale basses have the advantage of being able to handle larger diameter strings, which WOULD result in a better sound in terms of bass. Of course, this is a matter of taste as well…

Of course the best you could aspire to with a short scale is to sound like Jack Bruce who did all the Cream albums with a Fender Bass VI and a Gibson EB-3.