Hi Ron, I think I'm learning to "control myself" on this list, and "stick with the point", but a few ( ahem ) of us still seem like to "stirring things up" ---- just to watch them swirl. Your contributions are the most valued, and best written of anyone's here, in my opinion. The thought of your departure truly saddens me. Sincerely, Thump --- Sarah Fox <sarah@graphic-fusion.com> wrote: > Ron, it would be a pity if you left this group. You > are one of the few > innovators out there, and I've enjoyed your input. > I've learned a lot from > you. > > If I might leave you with an insight or two about > why you really do need > this list: > > I remember back during my graduate studies > (="postgraduate" fer' you > non-Yanks), I was working on a rather complicated > and radical theoretical > project. Obviously I was the one who understood it > the most, although I > admit to being baffled by much of it. A few other > folks understood most of > what I did about it. Most people regarded it as > pretty "out there" stuff. > I remember giving a talk to the Dept. of Electrical > Engineering about my > work, and within the first few minutes, they were > all telling me that my > entire premise was completely full of manure and > that I, a lowly > physiologist/biopsychologist, had little to show > them, the high and mighty > engineers. So I kept talking, and eventually a > dumbfounded expression fell > over their faces. I was witnessing a mass, "well > duh" moment, having shown > them a phenomenon that they had never considered > might exist -- or that they > had previously dismissed on the basis of faulty > assumptions. If only I had > my camera at that moment! I spent the next hour > laying out a complicated > theoretical development, and there were a lot of > good head scratching and > "ah hah" moments going on. I still hadn't scratched > the surface by the end > of the hour, but I had made an important connect, > and by engaging in > discussion, I had an "ah hah" or two myself. It was > a very good hour in my > life. > > Keep talking, and people eventually *will* > understand what you are trying to > do/achieve. > > Beyond getting your ideas out there/here, you might > not be as inventive a > person without us, even if we don't grasp or agree > with what you are telling > us. Talking with the EE crowd, and talking with my > advisor, and talking > with my fellow graduate students -- and with my > spouse, and with my young > children, and with myself, and even with my cats > (!!) -- did help me to > crystalize my ideas. Only my cats looked at me > knowingly. Everyone else > was at least mildly bewildered. But I found that > the process of simplifying > and refining my arguments was necessary in order to > move on with further > theoretical development. There were at least two > theoretical breakthroughs > on the project that would not have been possible if > I had not kept > simplifying, simplifying, simplifying, and > explaining, explaining, > explaining. If you can eventually explain it to a > child, then you've made > some real theoretical progress, and the next > breakthrough is just around the > corner! > > THAT is why you need us, Ron. We are your cats. > Sometimes we growl and > hiss, and sometimes we purr. But without us you are > nothing (as every cat > knows)! ;-) Take a break from us if you need to, > but PLEASE come back, > both for our sake and for yours. Keep talking and > engaging, because I bet > that is how you get your ideas. > > Peace, > Sarah > > PS The same goes for you too, Del! > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Greg Newell" <gnewell@ameritech.net> > To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>; > <ron@overspianos.com.au> > Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 11:32 PM > Subject: Re: Was Fish, I see no further utility in > the list. > > > > Ron, > > It greatly distresses me to hear you might > be leaving us for a > > while. You did once before and now Del has more or > less. Seems the > > greatest contributors to the forward thinking in > this industry have been > > pestered out of sharing their ideas and > contributions. I have long ago > > filtered the individual in question out of any and > all posts coming in to > > my mail box. The only time I ever read is when > it's quoted from someone > > else. I never seem to be amazed. Nevertheless, > please come back! I, for > > one, have learned so very much!! I hope to learn > so much more!!! > > > > best, > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > At 10:46 PM 2/19/2005, you wrote: > >>Its Ron Overs here, > >> > >>Mr Brekne wrote: > >> > >>>Yes Ron, actually my words do encourage one and > all (misguided or not) > >>>to explore the world of piano sound to the > fullest. > >> > >>The above remark was in reply to me, Ron Overs, > not Ron Nossaman. > >> > >>I don't accept your spin! Your words certainly > don't encourage me to do > >>anything, apart from getting my 'blood up'. But I > have no doubt that this > >>will give you some degree of satisfaction. > >> > >>Yesterday, I concluded a post with the following. > >> > >>>Knowledge in our discipline is expanding all the > time. We are living at a > >>>time when 300 years of combined thinking has > resulted in what we have > >>>come to know as the modern piano. It is essential > that this thinking and > >>>evolution should be allowed to continue. Further > progress remains > >>>possible as long as we don't let the politics of > the currently-successful > >>>ones get in the way. We must always endeavour to > work out what is a > >>>worthwhile design feature, and what might be a > dead end idea. The black > >>>art of piano design is fascinating, and there > remains an ocean of > >>>improvements waiting to be found. As with the > evolution of species, many > >>>subspecies will come and go like the Dodo. Not > all will be bad ideas, and > >>>some may be worthy of resurrection. But new Dodos > will come along as > >>>well. We must use our judgement to establish what > we believe to be the > >>>best combination of established practice, past > practice and future > >>>possibilities. Getting the three together in the > best proportion, when > >>>building a new instrument, can be somewhat akin > to jumping off a cliff in > >>>the hope that there is a soft landing at the > bottom, and not just rocks. > >>> > >>>You also have to contend with a multitude of > 'technical' opinion, which > >>>sometimes hasn't even been down the 'thinking > road' you have taken. So > >>>often this chorus will discount the new idea just > because it is different > >>>and 'not the way' their favourite manufacturer > does it. It doesn't > >>>necessarily mean that the new idea hasn't got > merit, but you have to > >>>somehow carry on through the 'thunderstorm' of > disbelief which surrounds > >>>you. > >> > >>In the last paragraph, from yesterday's post > (above), my reference to > >>'technical opinion' referred in particular to that > of === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC