Phil, I won't quote your reply, but am borrowing sentiments from your message to convey my thoughts. There may be something of substance for you and/or Andy. If so, it is coincidental, not the primary focus of the following: * RPT: I know of no body OR person who checks "credentials" on this list. I feel that anyone who does so really -does- have too much time on their hands. * PTG: (ref: Wim Blees sentiment) While this list is not the exclusive domain of RPT's or even PTG, all members have an unspoken commitment or "mission" towards new member recruitment. The premise is that there is power in numbers -- the power being the cumulative (and diverse) knowledge base of the masses -- the mass consisting of -both- RPT's or Associates. While knowledge can be disseminated on the list, it reaches a much smaller audience than other venues available through the PTG. * TIME: I (why do people say "we" when there's only one of them?) retrieve messages far more often than I can read/respond to them. Example: after seeing the replies to Andy's post, I scrolled back and found his message about "showing off our work...". It was (is) still flagged as unread. While looking for this, I discovered =dozens= of old messages, also unread, hidden behind the screen mask. Some of these appear to require a (late) response from me. This has to do with pilot error on my part, in using the sorting features of my mail reader without regard to the consequences. The point is that eventually Andy's (and other messages) will float to the top; I -will- visit his web site in spite of having seen only two players in the past five years, and I -will- respond (if appropriate) to the Fandrich, Nossaman, Bryant and other messages that I now know exist. * VALUE: The analogy by Bremmer (yes?) is appropriate in that this list is very much like [most] newspapers. My local newspaper could easily proceed directly from the porch to the bird cage, but I don't have a bird. In the early days (BYU/Reeves list), I saved many threads for a rainy day. Lately, I'm saving far fewer, but those that I do save will be worth their weight in gold when it starts raining. * EFFECTS: The fear (bad choice) of reprisal is not a new sentiment. Newbies and lurkers may feel intimidated to post for fear of being chastised, or ignored, the latter probably worse than being flamed. I posted a message long ago for those who felt, for whatever reason, their questions were too "elementary" for the group. I offered to field questions by private E-mail for anyone so inclined. Does that make me special? Don't think so, since I feel anyone else on the list would do the same. * DUES: Of the people I know personally on this list, they, without exception, have a keen interest in "paying dues", and I don't mean monetarily. They each no doubt remember the times when they too had more questions than answers. The answers were often not immediately forthcoming, and one either had to learn the hard way, or wait for the appropriate educational opportunity. Paying dues is sometimes called "paying back" -- in the same spirit of those who unselfishly helped fill in the blanks for the current 'seniors' of the group. Although the philosophy of paying back may be exclusively mine, I doubt it. Since their is no revenue generated by this list's participants, I resent any negative expressions directed toward those who take the time to respond -- regardless of their intent, their approach, their demeanor, or the results of their posts. * TECHNOLOGY: Internet lists are dynamic, rarely linear, and always unpredictable. The Internet, and this list, has made remarkable in-roads towards instant communication, especially when compared to former methods. Instant is a relative term, and instant communication must not be confused with instant gratification. There are no guarantees that there will be an early, an appropriate, or for that matter, any response. I'm still fascinated by which message threads "take" and which are, for all outward appearances, ignored. [This message will likely go in the latter group, in spite of my best efforts.] * ELITISTS: There are some here who can speak to any subject. There are some who cannot speak with authority to very much, but that doesn't deter them from trying to help. There are still others who tend to focus on specific areas, and for good reason. Notice I never respond to anything dealing with partials or tuning theory? There's a good reason -- I can walk the walk but I can't talk the talk. And yes, I feel like a 2nd-class citizen at times because of it. While on this thought, Jim Coleman unselfishly offered, many times, to "round out" my education in this area. This was a long time ago, but some things we don't forget. * SMILES: I never saw the "just an Associate who pays his dues" thread that caused Phil's comments. Perhaps it's among the 'hidden' messages I have yet to read. However, as has been said before, this medium misses the mark by being one dimensional. I'm guilty of using (too many) words when an occasional smiley-face would suffice. The characteristics of words w/o face or body language often leads to confusion, flare-ups, and yes, hurt feelings. Because of this, a reply doesn't always represent the =intent= of the person replying. My experience is that no list, IRC discussion group, or other word-based Internet experience is for the faint of heart. Broad shoulders are often required. I know because I've been both the perpetrator and the injured (feelings hurt). Similarly, the =intent= of a poster, is not immune from being misunderstood. Some messages of inquiry simply lack the proper "magic" (can't explain that) that elicits the desired responses. Instead, they appear as haughty, arrogant, and even demanding. This is -really- a global statement, and based on my participation in many lists. In these cases, it doesn't matter what is appended to a person's signature. I've seen doctor's, attorneys, engineers, and other professional suffixes flamed or shunned with equal fervor. * SYMPATHY: This one I can't hide with selective phrasing -- it is specifically for Phil. As one who routinely drives 2.5 hours (one-way) to chapter meetings; who frequently drives 4 or more hours (one-way) to visit other chapters; who, while returning from these meetings often pulls off to nap before becoming a traffic hazard; who foregoes income potential while getting to these activities on time, and who drove from Los Angeles to Hollywood, Florida to attend a PTG convention (at a time when I could least afford it), I'm afraid I don't have much room for understanding in this area. Sorry to plant this negative into what is intended to have positive (or at least healing) implications. * SUMMARY: Now y'all see why I try to be selective in my responses. Since it appears I'm incapable of a terse response, I must be selective if I'm going to write a book! As Newton Hunt wrote to me (and others think) "My, how you do go on." In this case, I feel the lengthy reply is both appropriate... and warranted. Without the face, voice and body language, I hope this message is received in the spirit it was intended. Why do I get the feeling that the message title and the results are working at cross purposes...? Jim Harvey harvey@greenwood.net Greenwood (n): the largest city in South Carolina WITHOUT an Interstate
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC