Steinway pitman

[Keith A. McGavern]

Part of Horace Greeley's post:
>What concerns me, in this as in other matters, is the nature of the analytic
>frame of reference.  When looking at a given problem, how do we approach it?
>Do we (read I), look at a given issue and say - "That's ridiculous!  Anyone
>can plainly see that this other way is better."  Or, do we see the same
>issue and say - "The people who designed/built this widget had complete
>control over doing so and chose this specific method of doing 'blah', why?" ...
>...How can we fault a design which we do not
>properly execute?

This is not to find fault with someone's idea, Horace.

Once upon a time the piano of the day was a square piano, the horse and
carriage were the means of transportation, and the icebox was the
refrigerator.  Does the design of the current piano of today find fault
with the design of the square piano of yesterday?  I think not.  What it
does do is provide for the current needs of today, and to a greater segment
of society.

In many instances we work with we have been given until someone comes along
and says, "There must be a better way."  On the other hand something like a
* lost motion eliminator * of olden days has not been improved upon, it has
just been eliminated.

Keith A. McGavern, RPT
kam544@ionet.net
Oklahoma Baptist University in Shawnee