<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; =
-khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV>Sorry. I know better, but I =
just wanted to ask the question to the biggest possible pool of =
expertise.</DIV><DIV><BR =
class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Kent</DIV><DIV><BR =
class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BR><DIV><DIV>On Sep 22, 2005, =
at 2:37 AM, David Skolnik wrote:</DIV><BR =
class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> 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.<BR><BR> =
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.<BR><BR> 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.<BR><BR> Peace (in honor of our <I>temporarily =
</I>absent data-cruncher),<BR><BR> David Skolnik<BR><BR> <BR><BR> At =
11:29 PM 9/21/2005 -0500, you wrote:<BR><BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE =
type="cite" class="cite" cite=""> <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite" =
class="cite" cite="">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.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR> That's right, responding to Kent's comment =
on that very thing.<BR><BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite" class="cite" =
cite="">Wouldn't epoxy address the present =
conditions?</BLOCKQUOTE><BR> 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.<BR><BR> Ron =
N<BR> _______________________________________________<BR> pianotech list =
info: <A href="https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives" =
eudora="autourl"> =
https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives</A><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE> =
</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>=