Klarinet Archive - Posting 000622.txt from 2003/02

From: Dan Leeson <leeson0@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Impingo Wood Supply for Clarinets
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:41:34 -0500

Thank you Kent. I am, of course, aware of the papers you mentioned,
particularly the one about the flute, which presents the strongest
argument. And I thank you for posting them in any case. I had planned
to insert those references up Paul's nose as evidence of two things: (1)
he has no idea of the extent of the literature that argues strongly
against the point that he so boldly and foolishly made, and (2) his ad
hominen remarks about him getting tired of my voicing opinions as facts
(which, of course, is exactly what he did) was not an argument I chose
to rise to.

I think that he fails to understand where the burden of proof lies in an
argument of this nature. In any discussion of scientific phenomena, the
part who asserts a hypothesis as being true (i.e., "the sound character
is a function of the material") must present evidence to defend that
point, while the party who says, "There is no evidence to support that
hypothesis," doesn't have to do anything. He or she need only sit back
and wait.

It is called the Godfather strategy, or the death by 1000 bites on the
ass; i.e., one makes an offer that the other cannot refuse and then that
party winds up like a whale in a bathtup.

Dan

Dan

Kent Krive wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Before you spout, check this out (Dan already has...):
> http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cache:U7E_AB2TZRUC:jurp.org/hurtgen.pdf+instr
> ument+material+vs+tone+quality&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
> or: http://jurp.org/hurtgen.pdf
> and:
> http://www.woodwind.org/Databases/Logs/1999/04/000333.txt
>
> Kent

--
***************************
**Dan Leeson **
**leeson0@-----.net **
***************************

---------------------------------------------------------------------