<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body> David.. Peace !! :)--- all is meant in the best of spirits eh ?? David Skolnik wrote: <blockquote cite="mid5.2.0.9.2.20040202055638.017f9268@mail.optonline.net" type="cite">RicB- More than the question of semantics in this present set of conversations is a carelessness in observing and respecting thread subject titles.  This time, I participated in the offense.  When this became "Soundboard stiffening"  I no longer expected to find answers to what is becoming narrowly referred to as my "coupling" questions.  I said this in a reply to Dale Erwin, however, I also replied to a post from Ron Nossman under the "stiffening" title which was actually still dealing with my coupling obsession.  I should have moved that discussion back to "No downbearing? REVISITED" . Since I owe Ron a response to his last (next to last) post, I will try to figure out how to title it clearly, if possible at this point.  Another serious problem, which makes this like a game of "telephone", is the tendency to distort intended meanings in the process of paraphrasing.  For example, in Dale Erwin's post which you responded to below, he presented his paraphrase of his understanding of my many questions, but he presented it as a quote from me, except 1) I never said it (as best as I can determine), and 2) as a paraphrase, its generality doesn't do justice to the range of very specific questions I have been asking.  In your previous post, you also complained of being misquoted.  But I feel you commit a similar error in that same post in your representation of my position. </blockquote> Yes David... you aptly describe one of the other problem sides of this form of discussion. I suppose we will all have to get used to it to some degree... because its been this way as long as people have been communicating this way. I find the best way to deal with it is to try and take each post more or less for what it is on its own. Each post relfects a point or two the author feels is important and relevant. So I tend to try and leave out whatever else I can read into words... leave out whatever frustrations I have about where the thread is wandering, and just see what the person was trying to say. <blockquote cite="mid5.2.0.9.2.20040202055638.017f9268@mail.optonline.net" type="cite">(RicB Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:18:10 +0100) <blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">So Davids question as to whether he could walk into a store.. measure negative bearing at a spot and conclude without further ado that there is a <<problem>> must be answered with a no. </blockquote> This is a straw man, one which you set up only to be able to knock it down.  This does not do justice to the questions I have tried to raised. </blockquote> I really wasnt trying to do justics or injustice to your question... but that said... the above is a near straight quote from one of your earlier posts on this subject. I certainly dont mean to make light of the question either. Quite the opposite... it raises a good area of query,  and one that should be given more attention me thinks... namely... Just what kind of  conclusions should we insist on agreeing to, given the kind of situation like you threw on the table.  How should dealers respond when localized negative bearings are brought to their attention ? <blockquote cite="mid5.2.0.9.2.20040202055638.017f9268@mail.optonline.net" type="cite">In the first place... its quite concievable that no << problem >> can be associated with any particular instance of localized negative downbearing. Or maybe your not hearing it, or maybe it hasn't manifest itself as an aural problem, yet. </blockquote> No... if it hasnt manifested itself as an aural problem yet... then it is neither hearable by anyone (as per definition of "aural problem")  nor a problem in any other sense that is already defined. If we, on the otherhand, can show that this condition will necessarilly and absolutely lead to some kind of problem condition... then thats another matter. But can you do that ? <blockquote cite="mid5.2.0.9.2.20040202055638.017f9268@mail.optonline.net" type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""> Then, in the second place.. you immediatly open a monsterous can of worms, as much of what can be considered a <<problem>> in this context, is going to boil down to whether any particular type of sound is pleasing or not... good or bad... acceptable or not.... a subjective sumphole to suffocate in :)</blockquote> I don't think this is fair.  When in doubt, make everything subjective or relative? </blockquote> David... the relativity of peoples tastes is not something I choose to take issue with. It is a factor that simply must be considered when dealing with these kinds of subject matter. Let me put a point on it...  What are you going to do on the day you point out to a dealer that a such and such Piano, brand new... has a SB defect of the kind you mention, and just as you finish up describing all in detail some well know pianist comes in, tries the piano... absolutely loves it... ESPECIALLY the area you mentioned... and buys it. Dont think that can happen ?? Think again. People are varied animals, and their tastes go along with it. <blockquote cite="mid5.2.0.9.2.20040202055638.017f9268@mail.optonline.net" type="cite"> I'm starting to lose hope, or maybe I'm just hungry. </blockquote> Loose hope ?... why ?? You have prompted and contributed richly to one of the better threads in these past couple months. Lots of thoughts are stimulated and running through many minds as a result. No doubt some of us.. maybe many, will have gained something for the discussion. What more can you ask for ?? Cheers and Best Regards RicB </body> </html>