>I didn't mean a battling elk is incapable of intelligent exchange. I merely >meant that it's not wise to converse with an elk engaged in battle. Why not? The point is that it wasn't a battle as far as I was concerned. It was a technical point that I was trying to illustrate that it looked to me John was trying to sidestep and belittle. I wanted the point to be made, if not acknowledged, for my own peace of mind because I think it's valid. I can only hope someone will read it for content and get the point. I don't have a problem with rational and honest contributions or questions coming into a technical discussion. I do object to obvious counterproductive attempts to disrupt or divert the discussion before all the points on the current table are covered. A little ranting and goofiness is fine and sometimes entertaining as long as the technical points aren't abandoned as a result. When that is allowed to happen, no one learns a bloody thing and all the effort expended up to that point is wasted. My general impression is that this isn't important to more than a handful of people on the list, and I find that disturbing. Maybe you can explain to me how this works, because it's always mystified me. Why are these discussions as read by others perceived purely as ego displays and general irascibility, with a near total disregard to the technical points made? I don't get it. I've heard all my life, and read here much too often, that it's not what is said, but who says it, and the way it's presented. Frankly, this scares hell out of me, because it means that these people aren't thinking for themselves and apparently have no intention of starting. The content and exchange of the best information we can get is the ONLY thing that's important here, isn't it? If we're not here for the content, then why? I surely don't know. Maybe I'm on the wrong list. If this offends anyone, I apologize, but this is how I see it. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC