In a message dated 98-01-31 16:22:47 EST, you write: Here's the problem, Susan, you see what obviously is a typographical error and you call it a "howler". << a fairly obvious howler>> Quite obviously the line should have read, << both the blow AND the aftertouch gradually increase and decrease respectively.>> People do sometimes omit a word or two when they write, Susan, particularly when they are using new equipment. Sometimes when I've been on line, the comuter blocks words I write without my knowing it. I had to get used to this. It could have also been that I was just thinking a little faster than my hands could write and I omitted what most people probably viewed as just that, an erroneous omission. But to you, this is not a simple error but an opportunity to "score" with an attack on someon'e credibility. Frankly, what I saw shocked me when I entered the List. People trashing the reputation of Floyd Stevens with an ongoing thread, "Do you know this man?" It only drew attention to someone who perhaps should have been ignored. Then there was Conrad, who is basically a nice guy and a fine technician. I sat through a luncheon with him at a PTG seminar and listened to him ridicule someone's rebuilding job. Snickering, adding detail after detail about how incompetently it was done, inventing things about how little knowledge and experince this person must have had. I tried to change the subject but to no avail. Then, I come on the List and I see it all over again. I tried to say that this was not needed, but it was ME who "flamed" poor innocent Conrad. NOTHING he had ever said could in ANY way be construed as offensive but EVERYTHING said was. Then there was you, Susan who accused me of attacking everyone. You took great pains to save every one of my posts and dig through them, copying everything you could find that you thought was some kind of attack. According to you, I attacked Jim Coleman, John Travis, William Braide White, etc. This is not true of course. To point out where someone has said something that is questionable or turns out later to be incorrect, is not an attack. It's called being analytical and perhaps critical. Then there was John Page who makes public statements about a fellow PTG RPT member whose work he deemed incompetent. He screams his suggested punishment for all to read on the List, "I say string him up". This, of course is again perfectly acceptable for him to say since he deems himself to be higher than I am on the "pecking order". But when I tell him that he makes his customer feel "stupid" for having trusted that other person, something which degrades the entire profession , I have publicly called John "stupid" instead and thus made a personal attack. I am threatened by him for it and patronized by having him explain that POS means "Point of Sale". I thought it did too until I joined the list. I saw "POS" being used so many times to describe a piano that I couldn't believe what I was reading. Then someone used the French word, "merde". When I complained about that and put it into quotes to show that this was what I was objecting to, it was ME who was using the word, not someone else. When I spoke of substandard conditions in the preparation of a piano that I knew George Winston to use, and that this was the reason he had this list of specifications that people on the List were delighting in ridiculing, I was the one who was ridiculing someone else. I never said where it was or whom I think might be responsible, things that keep frank talk of very real problems from being viewed as personal attacks, yet you, Susan, accuse me of "degrading the entire profession" saying that I think it's alright when I do it but no one else. When I made the remark about Jeffry Siegle, I did likewise and I'll only reiterate, not elaborate: In the venue where he performs, he has played on a piano for years that never has been tuned in ET, it isn't even close to ET but he accepts it as such and makes ridiculing, derrogatory remarks about the HT's. I think it's quite ironic and that is why I brought it up. Someone said he replied with a blunt "No!" and yet he apparently does not know the difference. Then there was Gina. It's perfectly fine for her to publicly state that she was "not impressed" with a piano I had tuned and to say that she "turns the channel" when music on the radio comes on because it has "wild unisons" knowing full well that either I or one of my Madison colleagues tunes it. The person who made the "attack" however was me, not Gina. I went off the List for about two months because as I saw it, everything I said could and would be used against me and I had so much work to do, such a heavy load of piano and literary work that I had to turn my attention to it, not the low life that I was reading about on this List. I was sorry to do it though because I knew that I would also be missing out on the worthwhile posts that occur here too. As soon as I came back on, because a fellow Madison Chapter member alerted me that there was a discussion about Historical Temperaments taking place, I immediately saw someone trashing the reputation of Baldwin Spinets. I wrote a post to try to set him straight on this. We should not ridicule the instruments upon which we make our living. We should learn how to service them properly instead. But once again, he said nothing at all that should not have been said, his were viewed as worthwhile statements. What I said was a personal attack. Then there was you again, Susan, <<(No, Mr. Bremmer, I am not calling you a liar.)>><<The only chaos seems to be in your theory.>> All I have to do is treat these phrases the way my statements have been treated. Forget the words "no" and "not" , it doesn't matter that what you are really trying to say, "Mr. Bremmer, I am calling you a liar" is how I interpret it. Now you have this List's version of an attack. But of course, it's alright for YOU to say these things because you believe yourself to be at the top of the "pecking order". I would not have even commented on your post had you not used my name. But somehow, I expected that you would find a way to do what you feel so compelled to do, establish yourself above all others and dictate. When I made mention of "hostility" towards those who use HT's, Gina Carter was quick to respond, "The only one showing any hostility is you". Again, it's fine for her to say that, she's at the top of the "pecking order". If I call her on it, it's a "personal attack against Gina (the poor defenseless, innocent, ladylike, Gina). You said, << What had me stopped was how to ask _very, VERY_ diplomatically how com- pression of the rest rail shims and hammer rest rail cloth could _decrease_ blow, while making it clear that I considered the rest of the post worthy and interesting. >> I suggest that you might have said, "Is this what you intended or was there an error or omission in this phrase? All the rest of what you said makes sense but this puzzled me." But it is obvious to me that you do not think like that. You look for ways to cut someone else down, to ridicule in order to elevate yourself but you can't handle it at all when someone gives you a little of your own medicine. I'm going to do what Jim Coleman suggested in the post that you reposted. Each time I see your name, I won't read the post, I'll simply delete the message. I can't copy the remarks that Gina wanted so that she could apologize for them, I deleted them long ago as I did everything from you in the past. There was no worthwhile information in them. There were only personal attacks, only "wasted bandwidth" as so many on this List like to say. If what I say about HT's irritates you, then I suggest you do the same, just delete any post you see by me on the subject or any subject. It is obvious that you have already made up your mind on the HT debate and there is no information I have, and I have lots of it, that would be in your slightest interest. It would only irritate you to see me "wasting bandwidth" with it. I'm not interested in making any personal attacks on anyone but I certainly will respond to any that are made on me and on anyone else and I will especially be critical of anyone who berates or ridicules any brand or kind of piano. Yes, there are some brands and kinds of pianos I really don't care for but you won't see me joining the crowd in their trashing. I won't accept work on square grands for example, but I still contributed the suggestion about how to tune one by removing the damper assembly. I even contributed a humorous post about what to do with them and made it clear that I thought it would be a joke until a theater company did the same thing quite seriously. It is probably pretty obvious by now that I have a great interest in Historical Temperaments. I tune them exclusively. I will not entertain any more suggestions of "unethical" conduct however. This is quite ridiculous if you ask me and I've tried to explain why it is ridiculous. I simply do not "go around" tuning in ways that would shock and confuse an artist, performer or regular customer without them knowing what I can do and with their full consent and approval. Just because I have said that I don't always disclose the fact when I tune a very mild Victorian Temperament, not always, I am the target of accusations of fraud, unethical and "possibly illegal" conduct (or behavior, as Gina put it). Tuning pianos with advanced knowledge and techniques is vewed as a kind of "behavior" by her. Of course, it is fine for her to call it anything she wants, she is at the top of the "pecking order". Now that I have wasted all this time and energy, not to mention "bandwidth", I don't have any left to respond to Michel LaChance's legitimate question. That will have to wait. You can keep this going if you want, Susan, but I for one won't read whatever your response is, I don't have time for it. Bill Bremmer RPT Madison, Wisconsin
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC