---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Sorry. I know better, but I just wanted to ask the question to the biggest possible pool of expertise. Kent On Sep 22, 2005, at 2:37 AM, David Skolnik wrote: > It was inevitable. Maybe it's occurred before and I haven't > caught it. My history communicating with Ron hasn't been stellar, > and I could see it coming down the pike again. Fortunately, it > occurred to me to check whether what I thought could not happen, in > fact, had. It had. Kent double posted the topic regarding B > 458198 to both pianotech AND Caut...a reasonable measure when > trying to engage the distinct constituencies of each list, though a > bit of a bother for those subscribed to both. Using Eudora, I > filter my mail so that each is directed to its own mailbox. I have > seen such double postings develop differently in the past. This > time, there was a leak, a breech, if you will. RonN (mind you, > I'm not playing the blame game here), posting on Pianotech, > responded to information (the restringing and use of CA on the > pins) that Kent had only mentioned in a resopnse on CAUT! My > impression from seeing only the Pianotech discussion, and thus my > responses, were that RonN was making unfounded assumptions about > the piano's history that had never been stated. If I were not > subscribed to both lists, or had not thought to check, our > exchanges would have probably continued on their ignoble, downward > spiral. > > So, what's my point. In the past, I have tried to make clear and > apologize in advance for such double posting, recognizing the > annoyance it can cause those who subscribe to both. It seems that, > perhaps it should be the responsibility of both the original > poster, as well as the responder, that any cross-list references > are made clear. > > So as not to hijack the original posting subject, I'll not include > any discussion of the technical substance in this post. Anyway, > I'm glad we cleared that up. > > Peace (in honor of our temporarily absent data-cruncher), > > David Skolnik > > > > At 11:29 PM 9/21/2005 -0500, you wrote: > > >>> I'm not sure what Ron means by the angle "self-correcting" unless >>> he is alluding to the rear pin's inevitable migration westward, >>> as the bridge splits become more pronounced. >> >> That's right, responding to Kent's comment on that very thing. >> >> >>> Wouldn't epoxy address the present conditions? >> >> Not with CA already in there. From a practical standpoint, it >> doesn't much matter how cracked the bridge is on the back pin row, >> as long as the resulting offset angle is enough to clamp the >> string to the speaking length bridge pin, and the speaking length >> bridge pin is solid, you won't hear the problem. >> >> Ron N >> _______________________________________________ >> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/0f/e0/7a/9c/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC