 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Brian
Date: 2003-01-02 13:24
Has anyone used the clarinet set-up services of Tom Ridenour? I wrote asking if I could make an appointment to try some instruments as I'm in desperate need of a new horn. This was his reply:
[ Snipped by Webmaster. Please do not post personal correspondence on the BBoard; without permission of the sender you have no rights to do so. You can, however, paraphrase the message. ]
Am I just reading this wrong? or is this quite rude?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kim
Date: 2003-01-02 14:21
I wouldn't directly e-mail a professional. They have a right to privacy too.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2003-01-02 14:30
I first met Tom Ridenour when he was still working for G. LeBlanc Corp. in Kenosha. He gave me a tour of the factory, made available hundreds of clarinets for me to audition, and finally, in subsequent trips to the factory, spent hours "tweeking" the instruments I finally selelcted and even introduced me to Vito. He was extremely helpful and courteous, and his work was masterful. You could expect to receive any clarinet that he has worked on in it's optimum playing condition--as "good" as it can be. He is a very competant clarinetist, is an educator "at heart" and is a very busy person--so I would encourage "cutting him a bit of slack." He is really one of the "good guys" in our profession.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jbutler
Date: 2003-01-02 15:53
Every time I have spoken with Tom he has been an absolute gentlemen. I have never tried to communicate with him via email or USPS. All I can say is that he has been extremely cordial in every way.
jbutler
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2003-01-02 16:35
Mark,
It's completely up to you to allow, or not, whatever you want to in this BB, and there is no argument there. You are the man, as the saying goes.
But to my knowledge, according to Federal law, by which interstate commerce, intra- and interstate mail, e-mail, telephone communications, and other communications are generally ruled (and this is not word for word, but my recollection of the jist of it from my days as a journalist):
A person legitimately privy to a particular conversation or communication has the right to pass it on, discuss it, issue an opinion in regards to it to whomever they determine to divulge it to, or otherwise divulge it to his or her heart’s chagrin or delight, including to paraphrase it to the best of their knowledge or understanding of the content and/or context of the conversation and/or communication, as long as such an undertaking is factual in nature and not maliciously intended.
This person also has the right to record, make notes of- or otherwise transmit the conversation/communication, as it is taking place, with or without the consent of any other parties involved.
This, also, is the same ruling that gives police the right to use informants and the information they pass on, whether written, recorded (in audio and/or video) or verbal. It's also what gives them the right to record (in audio and/or video) arrests, interrogations, etc., with or without the consent of the person they are recording.
(For those who don't know, the police have to follow the same letter and spirit of the law as any civilian, and have no priviledges beyond standard law.)
If you are a third party, you can use the communnications for legitimate purposes as long as you have the consent of one of the parties legitimately privy to the original communication and your use of it is factual and not maliciously intended, etc.
Unless there is a separate and additional, contractual agreement subscribed to by the parties involved in the original communication, Brian is completely within his rights to make public a piece of communications that was addressed to him.
I would venture to say, especially since this particular communication is not necessarily of a private or personal, but of a business nature.
This should all covered under freedom of speech and I wonder how it would be affected in the BB as far as freedom of the press is concerned. I wonder if you could be construed a publisher and us, contributors, as legitimate writers.
Anyway, perhaps it is to all our advange to know who is rude and insensitive to their clients and who is not, and I don't know what prompted Tom Ridenour to send Brian a "rude" reply, but I would be curious as to what did and what the content and context of the reply was. And apparently, Brian has "proof" of the rudeness of the reply in the content and context of the e-mail, unless he misinterpreted it in some way.
People like Tom and others are sometimes too busy to be very diplomatic in their communications and misunderstandings can happen.
Whenever that has happened with me, depending on the circumstances, I just figure the party replying to me in a rude way just doesn't want my business and I take my money elsewhere.
However, some people are just naturally what some would term rude and you have to accept them the way they are, or just walk away from them. Often, something regarded as extremely rude in Pahokee might be nothing at all in NYC.
I have communicated directly with professionals all my life and the worst I ever got was a note back thanking me for my interest in their product and directing me to their distributor and/or business manager.
Anyway, at this point, the benefit of the doubt to all concerned.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2003-01-02 16:48
Mark,
Could be, but I just consulted it with the attorney who used to handle my copyrights issues, mainly because it's been a few years since I was a journalist, and that is the jist of it, according to him.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette, Webmaster
Date: 2003-01-02 16:52
Peter,
Please don't waste any more space - I've got a job and I can't afford to waste much time on answering.
Your attorney is wrong. A private email is afforded the same protection of the law as a private letter.
If you wish to question me on legal guidelines re: bulletin boards, please do so privately. I have spent more time and effort on finding out legal matters than you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2003-01-02 17:25
Without substantiation, this sort of thing could easily turn into a grudge match (it has happened on other BBS).
Quoting chapter and verse to the Owner, operator and host of a BBS is pretty much an indication that you can run your own, ELSEwhere.
Baiting the Big Dogs would qualify as rude, too.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2003-01-02 17:48
Ahh, but Synonymous Botch, the same priviledge that gives you license to take the liberty, without being the "Owner, operator and host" of this BB, to tell me that I can "run your own, ELSEwhere,"
gives me license to point out to the legitimate "Owner, operator and host" of this BB when I think he is wrong, whether he actually is or not.
At least it used to be that way.
O.K. Mark, I'll drop it now.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2003-01-03 00:42
Peter:
I will not enter into any more discussions re copyright law, because evey time I have ever done so someone else comers along and tells me his attorney says I am wrong. Remember that attorneys do disagree, y'know? That's what makes some court cases so interesting. My Intellectual Property attorney told me long ago that it was not at all uncommon to have two clients in his offices simultaneously, talking to two of his staff members independently, one wanting to seek additional protection and the other wanting to find out how to knock it off.
But rather unrelated to this topic, some states have laws prohibiting the release of private correspondence without the approval of every party to the transaction of intelligence. This is a hazard of the internet: you might do something which is quite okay under most laws, yet run afoul of a statute in some jurisdiction that you just don't know about, because someone is receiving information to which he/she may not be entitled within that jurisdiction. And do remember the Monica Lewinski tapes, secretly recorded conversations with her friend who later released the tapes. Her action appeared to be illegal under Maryland law.
And by the way, if someone is rude to me once, I figure it was a mistake. Twice, that person is branded as rather unthoughtful. Three times, and I think someone's out to get me.
Good to see you around again, eh?
Regards,
John
Official Law School Dropou
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-01-03 01:09
Please, let's drop the arguments.
For whatever reasons I have, including legal and moral, posting private email without the sender's consent isn't to be done on this board. I've edited postings before for this reason and will probably have to edit them again.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: james
Date: 2003-01-03 18:18
Personally I wouldn't mind seeing that email. I have only heard good things about mr. ridenour.
just out of curiousity. Then how does a site, like democraticunderground.com able to post emails from people? are they violating something and don't even know it?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-01-03 19:04
james wrote:
> Then how does a site, like
> democraticunderground.com able to post emails from people? are
> they violating something and don't even know it?
They may be violating the sender's rights, and they may know about it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joris van den Berg
Date: 2003-01-04 01:09
Since this BB functions as an international one, and each country has it's own law. It's pretty much up to the maintainer of the board (read Mark) to deside what he thinks is correct. Even if he has a thorough knowledge of what is and isn't the American way.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
