Hey there David... Even tho I dont agree with those exact four points he made, the two discussions we've had this past month or so were so good that Wim has no doubt assembled lots of material for an article discussing various viewpoint and solutions to checking problems. I didnt quite pick up on whether he had once and for all solved his nut (no reference to pp inferred :) ) but if he has then of course we are all just tickled pink about it. As for the collective approach to the article and your reasoning for doing so... that also sounds very appealing to me. And I do like your idea of a sub-list for banging heads together for article stuff... And not just for this theme... there are plenty of things to be written about that CAUT list has provided tons of material for. Nice idea ! Cheers RicB RicB - I'm not sure why, given your disagreement with Wim's conclusions, you are pressing him to write an article. I myself am happy that he was able to resolve this problem before the end of the year so he can get smashed without a lingering sense of self doubt and...foreboding? However, I don't think the solution necessarily captures the subtleties of the issue and I think that any article put into the Journal should, at this point, be as definitive as possible. Why don't we all write it? I don't think we've tried that before. See if Ron can set up a temporary sub-list of sorts, with the specific objective of producing a definitive and accurate description of checking function and parameters. Two alternate possibilities are a) someone with the tools and expertise is already working on it, and/or b) such documentation already exists, in which case, we should locate it and republish it, with due credit, of course. Happy Holidays David Skolnik
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC