"other voices, other rooms" OT

[David Skolnik]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Andre -
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  Do you see this specifically=
=20
as an American societal problem?  (How could that be possible?)
But, more to the point, what are the list rules that seem to you to have=20
suddenly changed?   Since you wrote this above my own post, I'm wondering=20
if there is something I said to elicit your response.

hypersensitively yours,
David Skolnik


At 12:54 AM 2/15/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>I have learned from it that to be able to communicate one had to follow=20
>certain rules, rules I personally have not made.
>I have also learned that as soon as somebody here started talking about=20
>religious and political issues, immediately a heated discussion (and=20
>sometimes more than heated) would take place to ensure that we only discus=
=20
>piano related matters. (forgot about BB?)
>Apparently that all seems changed now.
>
>You know folks, it's all fine with me.
>I am just an outsider, (and indeed, I do make many writing mistakes) and=20
>this list is in origin an American list, so in order to be a subscriber, I=
=20
>'ll try to find my way through the list rules, which, apparently now=20
>suddenly seem to change.
>
>friendly greetings
>from
>Andr=E9 Oorebeek

>On 14-feb-04, at 20:39, David Skolnik wrote:
>
>Andre, David, Sarah, Y'all-
>
>First, I think that the acceptance and use of the OT designation has been=
=20
>remarkably successful...(exceptin' for the Porsche thread)... almost as=20
>much so as the success of municipalities in convincing their citizenry,=20
>whether peasant or royalty, to pick up after their pets.  It allows me, in=
=20
>my manual archiving, to simply channel non-technical posts to their own=20
>location, where I can look at them if I so choose, without distracting me=
=20
>when I'm reviewing the technical posts.
>
>This list has long had what could rightly be called a "DON'T ASK! DON'T=20
>TELL" policy.  That is, we have elected to acknowledge only enough of each=
=20
>other to allow a singular conversation.. about pianos.  In theory, it=20
>wouldn't matter if a contributor has perpetrated some outrageous act, or=20
>holds repugnant beliefs.  If their contributions to the list conform to=20
>our expectations of content and form, then they have fulfilled the primary=
=20
>list requirements.  So, what deep need is being fulfilled by the periodic=
=20
>venture "OFF TOPIC" ?    It's natural for an active mind to make=20
>associations, and sometimes it helps to relieve the tension engendered by=
=20
>having to monitor and filter what one says to those who have become a kind=
=20
>of community.  But, is there a difference between an "OT" which is simply=
=20
>observational, and one which is intended or can be expected to be=20
>controversial or inflammatory?
>
>In fact, I think we feel the periodic need to remind ourselves that the=20
>world we have created with this list is not real, and that there IS a=20
>difference between a cyber community and, dare I say, a real" one.   In=20
>the latter, we cannot easily choose to ignore those qualities that=20
>challenge our own values.  While we share common endeavors and interests,=
=20
>we reflect a tremendous range of experience, opinion, and convictions and=
=20
>we may not wish to or be able to acknowledge the validity of an opposing=20
>view.  What do you suppose the effect on the list would be, of our knowing=
=20
>the political, religious, sexual, or other preferences of each of the=20
>contributors?  Would it, in some subtle (or not) way, affect the way we=20
>interact with each other?  This is, for the most part, a comfortably or=20
>uncomfortably amoral environment, depending on your point of view.
>
>We might choose (theoretically) to have yet another, separate place (list)=
=20
>expressly for those sorts of exchanges... one which, like ptg-l, would=20
>have controlled access.  If a few people want to have such a dialog, they=
=20
>would retire to that list, whose contents would notbe archived with the=20
>regular list, a concern I find reasonable. However if, in fact, the=20
>motivation is to "witness" ones beliefs in as broad a public as possible,=
=20
>or to change the beliefs of others, such a separate list would probably=20
>prove inadequate.  In that case, the only hope would be the conscious=20
>commitment to respect the principles by which this list has thrived.
>
>And then, of course, in these times of Homeland Security, there's those=20
>paranoid types amoung(st?)  us (why do you think I'm talking about you?)=20
>who suspect that any statement of conviction might be read and noted by=20
>invasive authorities.
>
>HOW ABOUT IT ANDY?  A FIGHT LIST?
>
>Rambling pomposity at its best -
>
>David Skolnik
>
>-


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/c9/08/40/05/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--