Was "Killer Octave Question" NOT OT

[Ron Nossaman]

>Below is a good example of a technique that is used to poke fun at and 
>take advantage of an opponent in a debate. If you can get away with it and 
>no one calls you on it you can make your opponent look foolish. The 
>Absolute or Perfect Tactic. When your opponent makes a statement all you 
>have to do is ask him is if what he said was absolutely achievable, true, 
>valid or what ever. If he says yes all you have to do is ask him to prove 
>it. He can't so your opponent looks bad. If he says no I don't do it 
>perfectly you win also because if it can't be done to a high standard then 
>what's the point of doing it at all? There is no defense for it even if he 
>says nothing you win.
>
>How many people are left on this list interested in answering questions 
>like this? Not many I would think. Do we have a winner yet? Who cares?


No John, it was a legitimate question well within the scope of the 
discussion. I just didn't get an answer from you. Apparently, I wasn't the 
only one interested in how bridges fit to soundboards. That's why I 
mentioned my question to you in response to Terry's observations. You and I 
never got past the first question I asked. My interpretation of this ---

>Your right, it would. I have noticed this while building soundboards. If 
>the bridge is flat it fights the crown of the ribs as it is clamped into 
>the case. I am  no scientist and I don't have a degree in engineering but 
>it seems perfectly logical and consistent to machine the bottom of the 
>bridge to more or less follow the crown created by the ribs. I would think 
>this would add to the overall strength and durability of the whole 
>soundboard. I don't know what it does to the tone but a soundboard that 
>lasts longer will sound better longer.


--- was that you were saying crowned bridges support crown. Why else would 
a crowned bridge not fight crown, add to overall strength, and make the 
soundboard last longer and sound better when a flat bridge presumably 
wouldn't? I don't understand. If you didn't say here that crowned bridges 
support soundboard crown, what did you say?

In this context, it's not unreasonable to ask you why, as you said, you 
would have to bevel the bottom of a flat bridge to install it on a crowned 
soundboard, nor is it unreasonable to ask you how closely you fit the 
bridge to the soundboard when you do crown it. You made statements and 
comments - I asked for clarifying details. You asked if I wanted you to 
answer "all" those questions, and I said yes. Still do.

I've asked you technical questions, but I'm not getting technical answers. 
You aren't my opponent in a debate, and we're not discussing philosophical 
matters or playing for school trophies. We're discussing technical matters, 
I think. I try to have technically supportable reasons for doing things the 
way I do them, and I am called on regularly to elaborate on something I 
said. When I don't have logical reasons for my methods, I find "I don't 
know" to be an accurate, appropriate, and candid answer. When (not if) I 
learn something contrary to but making more logical sense than what I 
thought I knew before, I'll cheerfully accept the information until 
something better comes along. So when I ask you for reasons for your 
statements on the way you think  things are, it's for educational purposes.


Ron N