<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; = charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1491" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana>Oh I've got pretty thick skin. I actually = saved that post - I felt like maybe it was a statement that I've finally = arrived! I had never been accused of that before! I've never thought = anything is below me, I still work on spinets - but there are definitely things that = I am finding less satisfying (i.e. spinets and band-aiding-to-death old = worn-out uprights).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana>Regarding old upright, my thoughts are really = less about patching up a soundboard and more about the general condition of the = entire beast. What good is it going to do to improve a soundboard on one of = these great-a-hundred-years-ago uprights when the hammers are nubs and don't = all hit the right strings, all the action centers are loose, the bridge is = cracked, the hammer butts are worn through, the pinblock is shot, the keys are all = wiggley, action parts fly off while tuning, strings don't render worth a hoot, = it's plagued with false beats, etc. The soundboard is the least of that = piano's problems. Who cares if it has lost its crown? Replacing = keytops and rebushing keys would likely do more to improve most old = uprights than farting around with the soundboard - but even then, you still have all = the other things. Sorry to say, but I often find myself recommending to old = upright owners that they would be much better off finding a (cough-choke) "nice" = 20-year-old Kimball console for $500 or $600 than trying to patch up the old = upright. The quality old upright, IMHO, simply does not need $500 worth of band-aids, = it needs $20K of remanufacturing.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana>And as far as <EM>"</EM><EM>I think Terry's = statement was informative of his position on the subject, how else to express = it?"</EM> goes - that cuts to the heart of the matter - how else to express = it? I really think folks need to lighten up a bit. Folks state opinions on = this list. They share the approach they take to address various situations. It = doesn't mean they are saying that any other approach is bad. We just had a thread = about action center cloth - some like the Renner pre-glued stuff - someone = posted that the plain cloth works well. Is that guy stupid because he doesn't use = the same cloth as me? I don't think so. Do I think it is ridiculous to take the = time to put two dabs of glue on the cloth for each flange? Well, actually I do = think it's ridiculous - but that's just me - at the same time, I also know = that guy may even do it that way and still be faster than me and his bushings are = great. Nothing wrong with ten techs doing something ten different ways. I guess = that's what I'm trying to say here - when you read someone's statement about = how they do something or what they would do or not do, just realize that most of = the time that's all they are saying - a statement about what they do - they = are not (usually) saying that you shouldn't do it some other way!</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana>As far as participating on this list goes - = I'll have to get a whole lot smarter than I am now to ever get offended. When someone = suggests that something I said was stupid or wrong or bad, I figure they = are probably right (.....not!). So how could I get upset? I think I can = understand how someone with a lot of knowledge and experience (obviously, not = me) can get frustrated with people constantly suggesting that their whole = approach to piano work is baseless. As one researches and experiments and observes = over many years, they really can't avoid forming some pretty firm opinions on how = things work and what works and what doesn't. And sure, they will tend to state = maybe somewhat forcefully what their opinions are (and maybe even state it as = fact - so what? - it is to them - hey, some people even make the bold statement = that the theory of evolution is a fact!). But why some find the need to = challenge these opinions, I don't know. If a response is to better = understand the subject matter, that is one thing, but it seems it is sometimes = to simply tell the other person they are wrong - and such an approach can = only end up being divisive and argumentative.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana>Enough gibberish for now.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=3>Terry Farrell</FONT><FONT = face=Arial size=2><BR></DIV></FONT> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV><FONT face=Arial = size=2>> I'm watching this thread with interest because of egos not subject. = Thump,<BR>> go for it! Let us know, I remember John Block, met him in Denver, with his<BR>> valve springs.<BR>> Trent, "tautology" come on! I think = Terry's statement was informative of his<BR>> position on the subject, how = else to express it?<BR>> Terry, Please stay on this list.<BR>> I'll shutup = now.<BR>> Respectfully to All,<BR>> Fenton Murray, RPT<BR>> = </FONT><A href="http://www.MurraysPianoTuning.com"><FONT face=Arial size=2>www.MurraysPianoTuning.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial = size=2>> <BR>> > Thanks Terry, I certainly don't mind your = considering<BR>> > this idea  "beneath you........SNIP</FONT></BODY></HTML>