Klarinet Archive - Posting 000619.txt from 2000/08

From: Don Mayer <donmayer@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Correcting each other
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:56:11 -0400

Just my 2-cents worth, but I have to jump in at this point.

I have just joined this list-serve (about 3 days ago). Having belonged to
several special-interest list-serves, I feel that I should point out that
(in my opinion) the most successful ones are those where the members stay
reasonably on-topic (in this case clarinets and related issues), where the
members respect each other's right to an opinion and are respectful of each
other. The groups that self-destruct or have member-dissatisfaction are
those which forget those points. This is why some discussion groups are
moderated.

Anyway, I am sure you can read between the lines. Now, where did I put
those reeds . . .

Don Mayer

>On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:01:50 -0400, bhausmann1@-----.com said:
>
>> It may also be a case of not following the old rule, usually applied
>> to test-taking: RTFQ -- Read The F***ing Question. This can also be
>> phrased, "Answer the question you are asked, not the one you wanted to
>> answer." Again, I'm sorry I (and we of the List) did not address that
>> point in a timely manner. Still, had we been talking face to face,
>> I'll bet we'd have gotten that squared away quickly.
>
>It's not for you to apologise for not having addressed the point, Bill.
>Obviously, having been the first one to make a howling mistake, I can't
>blame you for having been mistaken in responding to it.
>
>What I nevertheless want to make clear is that now, you can't say that
>*you* understood the situation, either. (You still seem to me to want
>to claim that you and perhaps others did, above.)
>
>Whereas in fact, your mistaken response compounded the error by
>introducing stretch tuning in a totally misconceived way.
>
>If you had been clear about the subject, you would have pointed out
>where I was wrong, and not have involved stretch tuning at all.
>
>Or, if you had wanted to include a discussion of stretch tuning, you
>would have explained it properly: that is, as a way to make piano
>octaves pure, not as a way to deal with collaborating instruments like
>clarinets.
>
>As it was, you took my erroneous statement, and used it as the basis of
>a fallacious explanation of why piano tuners use stretch tuning. And
>you had me *believing* you, for a bit.
>
>Even then, I'm not trying to *blame* you. It's just that both of us got
>ourselves confused, you no less than me; and the truth is that we're
>*all* responsible for giving a clear overview of the subject when we get
>to the end of the discussion.
>
>That's what I want you to see.
>
>Tony
>--
> _________ Tony Pay
> |ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd Tony@-----.uk
> | |ay Oxford OX2 6RE GMN family artist: www.gmn.com
> tel/fax 01865 553339
>
>... File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N)
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
>Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
>Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
>Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org