At 10:35 AM -0700 8/16/01, Brian Trout wrote:
>How do we have good discussion on matters of any
>depth or complexity without saying things that
>someone could use wrong?
There's no way around this. Each of us has a normal way of
communicating in writing, one which allows us to get across what we
want to say. Were we to require than any description of a technique
be so fully elaborated that there remain no chance of some reader
taking that description and botching up the technique, we would all
have to write the equivalent of the 4 pt. type notices you find
inside containers of prescription medicine. There's no end to this
dilemma; no matter how clear we ay think we are laying things out,
there's always some crucial detail we'll leave out because we assume
everyone else knows about it. That's why knowing everyone else on the
list is so important. With that, you can trust that the techniques
conveyed will be received with the respect and delicacy they require.
(Needling on the crown, for instance.)
>Would it be better if this list was not so easy
>to join? Would we need to be RPTs to join the
>list?
Nope, I thought about that too. I actually like the diversity,
although it takes me a while to get acquainted with the human being
behind a new email address. We've got a great bunch here, from
builders of great accomplishment such as Del and Ron Overs, to
newcomers with valuable previous experience such as Mike Spalding the
former machine design engineer, and Judy from Houston who gets along
with piano technicians far better than with pinball machine
mechanics. And overall, we're welcoming and generous. (Look at all
the people who didn't react to Mr. Carwithen's call as i did, but
readily supplied useful info.)
>What's the answer? Restrict the discussion?
>Restrict the topics discussed? Restrict access?
None of the above. If anybody finds something uncomfortable about the
way information is exchanged on the list, they should speak up, as i
did.
At 5:07 PM -0500 8/16/01, Ron Nossaman wrote:
>This business of limiting the public discussion of high level information
>disturbs me though.
It would disturb me too if someone else suggested it. You bring up a
serious issue, but it wasn't what I had in mind. My point (as laid
out above) is simply that there is no level of subject matter for
which there wont be someone lurking on this list whose level of
experience it is hopelessly above.
>Just what are these high level "secrets" the newbies shouldn't be allowed
>access to so they won't do any damage? Who's got them, and who do I talk to
>to get some? Any information at all beyond the level of function of anyone
>at all is dangerous if the individual isn't functional at their present
>advertised level, so I guess we just need to roll it up and go home unless
>we can figure out where to draw lines. You today would likely consider you
>XX years ago as a dangerous incompetent, but if you had been kept insulated
>from high level information all that time, the you of today and the you of
>XX years ago would be a lot closer to being the same person.
Good point but much further developed than mine. I just pointed out
that there are beginners on this list, and that because the knowledge
flying around on this list isn't being transferred in the traditional
"two-people-in-the same-room" format, there's no control over whether
it will be used successfully or honestly. It gets back to knowing the
folks in your neighborhood (in this case, the list). If there's any
aspect of piano work which I really care about, you can bet I
consider *myself* a newbie at it.
>Then there's this thing about peers. Who's your peer? Who's Ed's? Who's
>mine? Nearly as I can tell, since no two of us are equivalent, none of us
>can safely talk to any other.
A valid point. I wouldn't be on this list if I thought it was for
hobbyists and weekenders. I've assumed that, excepting the people who
announce themselves otherwise, we're all in this line of work on a
professional basis, and that we intend to do good work, whether it be
on thoroughbred concert hall grands or workhorse uprights. I've
always assumed that we have this in common, and with this we are a
peer group. And being that we are serious about this peer group
discussion (that is, after everyone has suggested a new name for
Fido), the non-professionals, the tourists, the curiosity seekers
tend to muddy the flow of information.
>Incidentally, is that why the big names of the early years of the list
>dropped out - to avoid the Prometheus syndrome? Or was it to keep the
>commoners from looking behind the curtain? There's a certain element of
>danger associated with knowledge of any kind.
The people who I know have left this list, left with the complaint
that it wasn't focused enough (too much fluff and trash), not that as
an educational resource it was a menace to God-fearing pianos. In
fact, Bill Spurlock and I were not talking about what shouldn't be
said (ie., what should be left secret), rather about all that needed
to be said to make this sharing of info foolproof.
We've got a great list here. I had a moment back there where i felt
very uncomfortable, and needed to speak up. So I did.
Bill Ballard RPT
NH Chapter, P.T.G.
"No one builds the *perfect* piano, you can only remove the obstacles
to that perfection during the building."
...........LaRoy Edwards, Yamaha International Corp
+++++++++++++++++++++
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC