Thank you - Was>Words...etc.

David Skolnik davidskolnik@optonline.net
Sat, 01 Feb 2003 06:55:06 -0500


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Dear Keith and all-

To let the recent ruffled feathers fade into the archives un-addressed 
would be a disservice to us all.  While I did not entirely understand some 
of your initial distress, expressed in "setting the record straight (was 
Re: words technical w/piano question" on 1/30), I am equally confused by 
your current clarity of vision.  In fact, looking over this exchange, which 
was begun, innocently enough by Don (The Spark)
McKechnie  (Words...don't FAIL me now!)  I would say you were correct to 
take some umbrage at David Ilvedson's remarks

>Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:34:38 -0800
>From: David Ilvedson <ilvey@sbcglobal.net>
>Subject: Re: words fail me......
>
>Has everyone left Pianotech and moved to CAUT?  I certainly hope
>not.
>
>David I.

and

>Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:29:13 -0800
>From: David Ilvedson <ilvey@sbcglobal.net>
>Subject: Re: words fail me......
>
>Apparently I didn't get across what I was trying to say...lets not
>make the CAUT List into a Pianotech List with all the OT crap.
>
>David I.

In the first, the exact nature of David I's concerns are not clear to 
me.  What suddenly raised the specter of a mass migration from 
Pianotech?   In the second, it is hard to put a positive spin on "all the 
OT crap".   What, or whose comments suddenly inspired this statement?

In fact, while I think it commendable to take the initiative in turning 
down the heat, I cannot agree with you that the lines defining what this 
list is about, who it's for, or what it is meant to be, are at all clear, 
nor do I think that the solutions to the underlying issues are simple.

CAUT is an open list, meaning its membership is not restricted to 
CAUTs.  So, what defines it as CAUT?  The credentials of its participants, 
or the content of discussion?   The majority of us on this list are 
significant participants on Pianotech, as well, yet, in looking at the 
threads, or subject headings in the archives,  I see no consistent defining 
criteria for what has been posted here, as opposed to there.  So, what's 
up?  Do any of you dress differently, or change writing style, or sit in a 
different chair when posting to one list or the other?  I doubt it. I do 
not doubt that the "noise" and crowding that have come to characterize 
Pianotech have, and will continue to make themselves a factor on this list 
as well.

We are responding and reacting to a fundamental quality of our time...an 
overload of information. If a moratorium were placed upon further posting 
to these lists, the wealth of information already residing in the archives 
could keep us occupied for years.  Our shared frustration is in our need to 
find a way to filter and organize the information that is at our 
disposal.  As Keith points out, however, these lists are more than 
compilations of data.  They represent a community.  As such, we revel in or 
endure each others unique humanity.  It's just that it's a lot easier to 
assess what is OT regarding data than it is when expressing that humanity.

The CAUT list is un-moderated, thus we have only ourselves to define the 
tone and focus of the discussion.  RicB was only doing what each of us has 
to do in our capacity as self-moderators, though his comments may have 
sounded a bit arrogant.  I'm sure that's only his writing style.  The 
question is, how do you go about changing something that you feel may not 
be working?  How do you introduce elements of structure and order into an 
environment that didn't begin, nor evolve with it?

I have some suggestions.

- Imagine you (all of you'se) are the list moderator.  Go back into the 
last few months' archives and determine how many of the messages were 
addressing issues specific to institutional technicians.  How many of them 
would have warranted at least cross posting to Pianotech list?  (I'm aware 
of the downside of cross posting).  The question then becomes, what would 
be an appropriate venue for these culled posts?  Maybe we need a separate 
list for the personal exchanges.

- As someone else recently suggested, look at your own contributions and 
consider the signal/noise quotient.

- Observe the carelessness with which we abuse subject headings.  As with 
newspaper headings, if we could better determine the content of a posting 
by its subject, a considerable time waster would be eliminated. Just look 
at the recent/current "words fail..." thread, for example.  This would also 
make navigating the archives easier.

- Take back the list!  If you think Pianotech is floundering, fix it, don't 
walk away from it.


Most respectfully -

David Skolnik










At 01:57 PM 1/31/2003, you wrote:
>Dear CAUT members,
>
>I am continually amazed at the things I learn about myself from this list 
>and its members, all the way back to its beginnings and the dear departed 
>colleagues, Jack Reeves, Danny Boone and Newton Hunt.
>
>The lines became temporarily blurred for me with regards to what this list 
>is all about, to who this list is really for and for what this list is 
>meant to be.
>
>Thank you for bearing with me. The lines are clear once again.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Keith
>
>Keith McGavern, RPT
>Oklahoma Baptist University
>Saint Gregory's University
>Shawnee, Oklahoma, USA
>
>PS: Can someone update the current status of
>
>Mark E. Clark, Dartsmouth University/College
>Mark Story, Eastern Washington University
>_______________________________________________
>caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/93/0d/6d/66/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--

This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC