<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"> <style>  </style>  </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> Hello David:<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Thank you for the quality of your thoughtful response.  It elevates this discourse – something we all should aspire to with our remarks.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Will Truitt<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'> From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Skolnik Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 11:03 AM To: Pianotech List Subject: RE: Apology<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <o:p> </o:p> Will etc. To say that your observations are measured leaves a range of possible interpretations, (though, in this case, I mean it quite positively).  Such is the case with the way that Marshall presented his original, fateful recommend.  Hey everyone,Check out the video clip.  It's important that we know about this sort of thing.  Marshall.   Taken at face, and apart from the issue of promoting  ANY political discourse here, a closer (not too close) reading reveals no evidence as to whether he means that we should know something about Obama that we might have been previously unaware of, or that there are websites, like the one linked, that we should be aware of.  He provides no clue to his own opinion.  How enigmatic!  One could argue, successfully, I suspect, that the projected absence of an opinion is simple sophistry or intentional obfuscation. There are protocols that have evolved over the years that have allowed this list to retain its primary focus while still creating a genuine organic community, allowing people to be themselves, to an extent. It is, of course, a delicate construct.  We choose to withhold parts of ourselves that might otherwise compromise our ability to engage in our focused discourse.  Benevolent disingenuity?  This doesn't mean that we might not ultimately feel  disappointed, once our interactions move beyond the 'avatars' we present here.  There are many more interesting (to me) issues provoked by this episode than the one of free speech, or whether Marshall is an idiot...I wouldn't say so, judging from the general tone of most of his posts, which, as 'Marshall Gisondi' and variants of 'pianotune5', are more abundant than might be expected by his statement: <o:p></o:p> now you guys owe me an apology, always out of line on the list?  hmm I rarely write on here. <o:p></o:p> Speaking of protocol, I do appreciate the fact that he was finally willing to use his last name.  It does make a difference. You must acknowledge that, once having successfully created such a community, the impulse to share more of ourselves is, at times, difficult to ignore.  And isn't there something, even a little bit curious about the successful purging of any reaction to the world at large - Myanmar and China, for example? Even helplessness would at least acknowledge the enormity of suffering taking place?  I think it's sometimes possible to get too comfortable with our ways. Will, I don't agree with Tom Sivak that you missed the point, nor do I believe, as I started to say, that Free Speech is the main issue. I'm much more fascinated by the personal process of accommodation whereby we allow ourselves reasoned intercourse on selected topics  while knowing of or at least suspecting the existence of fundamental differences.  Just how distorted a human being would one have to be, in our own eyes, before it impinged upon our ability to interact constructively or to accept otherwise sound advice?  Would I accept voicing tips from Charles Manson if he were a tuner?  Asked rhetorically.  Marshall's error was in posting the link, or posting without clearly indicating OT, or, ironically, in NOT expressing an opinion.  Your own post reminded me of a recent conversation I had with a client regarding the distinction between a republic and a democracy, and which most accurately defines our own system of government.  Not a conversation for here, but worth inquiry on one's own time.  Have a safe holiday and, in the spirit of blatant plagerism: Cheers David Skolnik  RPT Hastings on Hudson, NY Thanks to Bill Shull for excellent Early Steinway class. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>