Rear Perplex Bars on Steinways:

[Bill Ballard]

At 12:37 AM -0700 5/14/03, Robin Hufford wrote:
>Hello Bill,
>      I have always accepted the right of any technician to do as he 
>wished with a
>given piano and I have repeatedly expressed this, or, at least, I 
>thought I was
>doing so.  I think my posts  indicate such, and I have never excluded the
>possibility of improvements thereby.  Indeed, I find myself also 
>informed from the
>ideas in such discussions.

Good, I'm glad to have that in common with you.

>This part and the preceeding paragraph in my post,
>were not commentary of any redesign efforts but, rather, of the 
>preposterous claim,
>recently repeated in a post under this thread, that what impedes 
>willingness to
>accept these "improvements", whether they be such or not, arises 
>from a fear of any
>new technical feature or new method.  Or, even more ridiculous, the 
>idea that one
>can be so overawed by some product as to consider it sacrosanct and from that
>perspective  then assign it "character" in order to be relieved of the
>responsibility of dealing with its flaws.  Need I make any further 
>commentary on
>such a view?

On the one hand, I might ask you to site specific complaints. For all 
I know, you may be referring to Dan Franklin. On the other hand, no, 
you needn't. This thread is already far too abstracted from the 
actual nuts and bolts of the subject, and by now is more a debate on 
intellectual etiquette.

I do share with you the importance of intellectual honesty. But we 
must keep in mind that this is an internet mailing list, most of whom 
have no direct acquaintance with one another, and few of whom will 
actually let a completed post sit in the out-box, to be re-read an 
hour later or the next morning, before their words get fired off. 
It's also abstracted by the fact the no where in all this text, is 
there a group of techs all  in one room together all listening to the 
same piano, and having this shared aural experience be the basis for 
the discussion. Such is the nature of internet discussions. You may 
be happier with it than I am.

At 12:55 AM -0700 5/11/03, Robin Hufford wrote:
>The underlying assumption of the various techniques of the
>"redesigners"  is what, as far as I can tell,  seems to be a completely
>unsupported claim to a superior result, something which, if real, all  would
>applaud.  But the only reality that I can see here in this context are words
>and ideas only, both of which may well be questioned.   What does it  mean
>when one hears over and over: " These methods and techniques will achieve a
>superior result, " and in the next  breath, "The results are  superior
>because we have used these methods."  Surely few would concede anything to
>such an argument, except, perhaps laughter.

It would be nice if we were all in the same room, listening to the 
same piano. Until the real thing comes along, I'll be happy 
discussing nuts and bolts.

My respect and regards,

Bill Ballard RPT
NH Chapter, P.T.G.

".......true more in general than specifically"
     ...........Lenny Bruce, spoofing a radio discussion of the Hebrew 
roots of Calypso music
+++++++++++++++++++++