<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html>   Mike, Avery, and David quoted <blockquote TYPE=CITE>. My general impression > is that this isn't important to more than a handful of people on the list, > and I find that disturbing. > > > Ron N ></blockquote> And seemed to interprets as a reference to the importance of the thread itself. Maybe I misunderstood, but I think Ron was refering to the importance of something entirely different then the specific thread at hand. Put back into its context Ron wrote: <blockquote>"I do object to obvious counterproductive attempts to disrupt or divert the discussion before all the points on thecurrent table are covered. A little ranting and goofiness is fine and sometimes entertaining as long as the technical points aren't abandoned asa result. When that is allowed to happen, no one learns a bloody thing and all the effort expended up to that point is wasted. My general impression is that this isn't important to more than a handful of people on the list, and I find that disturbing."</blockquote> It seems to me that what Ron is saying here there are only a handfull of people who do not treat the varioius subject matter with the levity they deserve, and that all to often "obvious counterproductive", and "disruptive" disscussion techniques disrupt and essentially wreck any real educational value this list may have.... and that nobody really cares beyond this "handfull of people". There are more then a few things about this kind of charge leveled against the great majority of our list that disturbs me, and I will list them up. 1. It assumes a definition of learning that is far to narrow. People learn in very different ways and this simply has to be allowed for. 2. It does not specifically define what is counterproductive, or disruptive... yet this post, and the offtopic "elk battle" that just proceeded it,  was prompted by yet another dissagreement over matters that we simply do not have any definitive answers on. 3. This very type of technical dissagreement with all its side bars from any particular contributer, which Ron seemingly wants to define as being so destructive, is exactly the kind of discussion very very many people both on this list and elsewhere in life learn best from.  To quell this kind of discussion in the name of some idea of "real truth" would be both foolish, really counterproductive, and lead to eventually exactly the kind of squashing of new thinking Rons seems so frustrated about otherwise in our work. 4 It reflects non-confidence in the ability of people to find their own truths in their own ways, and really... it declares people who do not fit into whatever the operational definition of  <<serious and constructive>> is as something very much less then flattering. Lots of folks have come and gone on this list, and not a few simply leave because they are subjected to this kind of treatment. It is not healthy, nor at all educational to allow for only one perspective on what is the truth about pianos, or the truth about what is valid to say about pianos. Nor is it productive to whiddle away at people with opposing views with every sophist technique in the book and then turn around when all else fails and accuse them of being off topic and not worthy of further consideration. No one deserves that kind of treatment, and certainly no one..... most certainly no one with asspirations of being a teacher of sorts..  is in the right in doling out this kind of thing. Now before anyone gets all humped up about all this, let me temper the above by restating something I have said both in private and in public on numerous occasions. I value Rons positive contributions, both technical and humourous to the nth degree. I find him a particularilly unselfish and highly dedicated technician who has the most sincere desire to further our (and his own) knowledge and our industry in general. But I reserve the right to disagree on both technical issues, and what constitutes a positive learning environment... on my own terms and without having  my sincerity or intellegence brought into question. As I think every single person on this list does in the end. I would hope we could all move on now, knowing and trusting in the fact that regardless of our qualifications or our perceptions, we are all family, all sincerely interested in all piano related discussion and knowledge, and all quite lacking in far too many ways in that knowledge. Sincerely -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway <A HREF="mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no">mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no</A> <A HREF="http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html">http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html</A> <A HREF="http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html">http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html</A>  </html>