Klarinet Archive - Posting 001173.txt from 2003/06

From: "Wendy" <bosma@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] The Stravinsky chord
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:53:53 -0400

>I did ask to the guy to
identify him/herself, but he didn't until much later, and then only his
first name. .

Man, that's harsh. I don't blame the guy at all for keeping his identity a
secret. The way y'all lash into anyone who has any thing close to a
conviction. Even while stating "THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION" we still get a
borage of backlash. I'm sure 17 different people will write me off list to
tell me just what they think of my latest outburst. Not to mention the 24
that will respond on list to tell me that I'm obviously just some dumb
blonde that can't possibly have anything pertinent to say.

>I can only assume that the guy mustn't have much intelligence

I think, judging by the way he's responded to your criticisms, that he's
probably quite full of intelligence.

>Taking this to it's ultimate extreme, he could have been a paedofile.<There
IS no room for anonymity.>

I don't know what a "paedofile" is, but for all we know, you could be one
too.

>We still don't know who he is, and what he does.

If he's on this list, we can at least assume that he has something to do
with a clarinet. That's about all that really matters now, isn't it? Chill
out, dude. You're going to scare away the cool people (like y'all did to
poor Rurik Leffanta).

Have a Nice Day!!
Wendy :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Wakefield [mailto:tony-w@-----.uk]
Subject: Re: [kl] The Stravinsky chord

From: "Mark Charette" <charette@-----.org>
Subject: Re: [kl] The Stravinsky chord

> From: "Anthony Wakefield" <tony-w@-----.uk>
> > The first post, by "noname" was a criticism of me,
> > accusing me of speaking for the rest of the list.
>
> Continuing to beat a dead horse...
> The comment made by NoName, to my recollection, was entirely truthful and
to
> the point without being rude. Why you took offense is still beyond me.
>
> Mark C.

The whole mail was rude, and I took offence because it was sent anonymously.
There`s no defence here. Indeed there wasn`t any justification for it`s
content come to that, and I have already explained this - I`m not going to
again. It should have been you, as moderator, (or at least surveyor of the
list) who should have stepped in first to quell this potential stupid row by
refusing to let the guy post anonymously in the first place. Don`t tell me
the technology is not in place. Put it in place! I might say you should know
better. But I have my doubts as to whether people who run internet lists do
know better than us ordinary folk. I have had some silly, silly remarks from
internet staff at times, who believe they hold all the answers when it comes
to "moderating". And please don`t advise me that you are not a moderator,
because you have all the hallmarks of one, and have had ever since I first
started.
If someone else comes along in here anonymously in future, I shall speak to
you first with a view to receiving an explanation. I hope everyone else will
also.
I don`t even want to be praised anonymously, let alone be citicised
anonymously. I don`t want anything anonymous. I did ask to the guy to
identify him/herself, but he didn`t until much later, and then only his
first name. I can only assume that the guy mustn`t have much intelligence.
Taking this to it`s ultimate extreme, he could have been a paedofile. <There
IS no room for anonymity.> We still don`t know who he is, and what he does.
Everyone in here should know these things at least.
So please Mark get off my back.
Tony Wakefield

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/