no technical content WARNING - RANT

[Richard Oliver Snelson]

Ron, It's too bad you don't get the point! They are tired of this. And
this is the place to do something about it. We need a moderator! 

As a general rule: If what you say shouldn't be published in the
journal, don't put it here either. 

Rich

Ron Nossaman wrote:
> 
> List,
> An observation or two, if I may.
> 
> 1: If the complainers of the lack of technical discussion would post
> technical discussion instead of complaints, there would be a higher
> percentage of technical content in this List. This ought to be self evident
> to everyone, but apparently is not. As the technical content diminishes,
> the chit chat traffic increases. If you don't like the chit chat, bury it
> in technical discussion. Overwhelm it with pertinent data. The fact is that
> if someone says something interesting, people will be interested. If not,
> it seems that people will just complain.
> 
> 2: When a technical discussion is in progress, there are normally only two
> or three participants of the dozen or so who are willing to join technical
> discussions at all, none of whom are the habitual complainers of the lack
> of technical content.
> 
> Why don't the complainers join in when there is a technical discussion in
> progress? They're awfully quiet when the information is flowing and only
> tend to surface and get noisy when it stops. Who's getting the benefit of
> whom here? Why do they offer so few of the technical observations and
> comments that get these discussions started? Where is their contribution to
> the much bemoaned deteriorated content of List traffic? I see precious
> bloody little of it. If you want to know where the revered names of the
> industry that used to traffic this List went, my guess is that they didn't
> see any point in hanging around when so few of the List subscribers were
> willing to put their egos and knowledge on the line for public scrutiny and
> dissection when they got so little in return from the majority. This List
> isn't intended as a school for lurkers complaining when the curriculum
> doesn't meet their demands, it's a forum for the exchange of ideas and for
> discussion of all things piano. We're it, folks. Any technical discussion
> that appears here is generated by us. That's US, people, not HIM, not HER,
> not THEM - US! That's ANY of us and ALL of us. Anyone that's learned a
> nickle's worth from this list owes it a dime's worth back, and if all of us
> paid our debt, we'd be swamped in technical discussion. Those that
> contribute little should complain to the degree to which they contribute
> when they don't like the way the List is going - seldom, or not at all.
> Rather than crying that the List is wasting their time and not teaching
> them anything, they should be teaching the rest of us some of what makes
> their time so valuable. In my considered if not humble opinion,
> consideration is earned by contribution. Help, don't just give us another
> junk post to delete.
> 
> Note: The subject heading says "no technical content", so it's likely that
> the folks this was intended for won't read it anyway, and there's the pity.
> For those who are actively contributing technicalities in an attempt to
> make this List work, please disregard the above, with my congratulations,
> gratitude, and apologies for wasting your time.
> 
> Ron N