<HTML>As a person who is trying, as we all are, to improve h= is craft, I appreciate the leading edge technical information provided by th= ose who are trying to make the piano a better instrument. As a person who is sincerely struggling over the ethics and efficacy of vari= ous redesign operations, I very much appreciate the arguments of Robin Huffo= rd, David Love, Bill Ballard, John Hartman, et. al., which speak eloquently = to the philosophical and commercial, as well as the technical side of these = processes. The many different positions taken on the recent Horowitz piano t= hread have been equally enlightening, and showed that there are more than tw= o sides to most issues. I would say, though, that two recent sarcastic posts (concerning FAILURE to = redesign) shed more heat than light, and I think they tend to stifle convers= ation. I understand the emotional stake one can have in defending a position= , and I relish the intellectual tweaking of a bit of irony from time to time= , but I've enjoyed the depth of conversation on several topics over the last= month or two, and I find the sarcasm dismissive and disrespectful. Assign only the noblest of motives to your opponent, keep up the debate, and= thank you. Bob Davis</HTML>