"Pecking Order"

[Billbrpt@aol.com]

In a message dated 98-01-31 16:22:47 EST, you write:

Here's the problem, Susan, you see what obviously is a typographical error and
you call it a "howler".  

<< a fairly obvious howler>>
 
 Quite obviously the line should have read,

  << both the blow AND the aftertouch gradually increase and decrease
respectively.>>

People do sometimes omit a word or two when they write, Susan, particularly
when they are using new equipment. Sometimes when I've been on line, the
comuter blocks words I write without my knowing it.  I had to get used to
this.  It could have also been that I was just thinking a little faster than
my hands could write and I omitted what most people probably viewed as just
that, an erroneous omission.  But to you, this is not a simple error but an
opportunity to "score" with an attack on someon'e credibility.

Frankly, what I saw shocked me when I entered the List.  People trashing the
reputation of Floyd Stevens with an ongoing thread, "Do you know this man?"
It only drew attention to someone who perhaps should have been ignored.  Then
there was Conrad, who is basically a nice guy and a fine technician.  I sat
through a luncheon with him at a PTG seminar and listened to him ridicule
someone's rebuilding job. Snickering, adding detail after detail about how
incompetently it was done, inventing things about how little knowledge and
experince this person must have had.  I tried to change the subject but to no
avail.
    Then, I come on the List and I see it all over again.  I tried to say that
this was not needed, but it was ME who "flamed" poor innocent Conrad.  NOTHING
he had ever said could in ANY way be construed as offensive but EVERYTHING
said was.
     Then there was you, Susan who accused me of attacking everyone.  You took
great pains to save every one of my posts and dig through them, copying
everything you could find that you thought was some kind of attack. According
to you, I attacked Jim Coleman, John Travis, William Braide White, etc.  This
is not true of course.  To point out where someone has said something that is
questionable or turns out later to be incorrect, is not an attack.  It's
called being analytical and perhaps critical.
    Then there was John Page who makes public statements about a fellow PTG
RPT member whose work he deemed incompetent.  He screams his suggested
punishment for all to read on the List, "I say string him up".  This, of
course is again perfectly acceptable for him to say since he deems himself to
be higher than I am on the "pecking order".  But when I tell him that he makes
his customer feel "stupid" for having trusted that other person,  something
which degrades the entire profession , I have publicly called John "stupid"
instead and thus made a personal attack.  I am threatened by him for it and
patronized by having him explain that POS means "Point of Sale".   I thought
it did too until I joined the list.  I saw "POS" being used so many times to
describe a piano that I couldn't believe what I was reading.  Then someone
used the French word, "merde".  When I complained about that and put it into
quotes to show that this was what I was objecting to,  it was ME who was using
the word, not someone else.
     When I spoke of substandard conditions in the preparation of a piano that
I knew George Winston to use, and that this was the reason he had this list of
specifications that people on the List were delighting in ridiculing, I was
the one who was ridiculing someone else.  I never said where it was or whom I
think might be responsible, things that keep frank talk of very real problems
from being viewed as personal attacks, yet you, Susan, accuse me of "degrading
the entire profession" saying that I think it's alright when I do it but no
one else.
    When I made the remark about Jeffry Siegle, I did likewise and I'll only
reiterate, not elaborate:  In the venue where he performs, he has played on a
piano for years that never has been tuned in ET, it isn't even close to ET but
he accepts it as such and makes ridiculing, derrogatory remarks about the
HT's.  I think it's quite ironic and that is why I brought it up.  Someone
said he replied with a blunt "No!" and yet he apparently does not know the
difference.  
     Then there was Gina.  It's perfectly fine for her to publicly state that
she was "not impressed" with a piano I had tuned and to say that she "turns
the channel" when music on the radio comes on because it has "wild unisons"
knowing full well that either I or one of my Madison colleagues tunes it.  The
person who made the "attack" however was me, not Gina.
     I went off the List for about two months because as I saw it, everything
I said could and would be used against me and I had so much work to do, such a
heavy load of piano and literary work that I had to turn my attention to it,
not the low life that I was reading about on this List.  I was sorry to do it
though because I knew that I would also be missing out on the worthwhile posts
that occur here too.  As soon as I came back on, because a fellow Madison
Chapter member alerted me that there was a discussion about Historical
Temperaments taking place, I immediately saw someone trashing the reputation
of Baldwin Spinets.  I wrote a post to try to set him straight on this.  We
should not ridicule the instruments upon which we make our living.  We should
learn how to service them properly instead.  But once again, he said nothing
at all that should not have been said, his were viewed as worthwhile
statements.  What I said was a personal attack.
    Then there was you again, Susan,
<<(No, Mr. Bremmer, I am not calling you a liar.)>><<The only chaos seems to
be in your theory.>>

All I have to do is treat these phrases the way my statements have been
treated.  Forget the words "no" and "not" , it doesn't matter that what you
are really trying to say, "Mr. Bremmer, I am calling you a liar" is how I
interpret it.  Now you have this List's version of an attack.   But of course,
it's alright for YOU to say these things because you believe yourself to be at
the top of the "pecking order".  I would not have even commented on your post
had you not used my name.  But somehow, I expected that you would find a way
to do what you feel so compelled to do,  establish yourself above all others
and dictate. 

When I made mention of "hostility" towards those who use HT's, Gina Carter was
quick to respond,  "The only one showing any hostility is you".  Again, it's
fine for her to say that, she's at the top of the "pecking order".  If I call
her on it, it's a "personal attack against Gina (the poor defenseless,
innocent, ladylike, Gina).

You said,

<< What had me stopped was how to ask _very, VERY_ diplomatically how com-
pression of the rest rail shims and hammer rest rail cloth could _decrease_
blow, while making it clear that I considered the rest of the post worthy and
interesting. >>

I suggest that you might have said, "Is this what you intended or was there an
error or omission in this phrase?  All the rest of what you said makes sense
but this puzzled me."

But it is obvious to me that you do not think like that.  You look for ways to
cut someone else down, to ridicule in order to elevate yourself but you can't
handle it at all when someone gives you a little of your own medicine.

I'm going to do what Jim Coleman suggested in the post that you reposted.
Each time I see your name, I won't read the post, I'll simply delete the
message.  I can't copy the remarks that Gina wanted so that she could
apologize for them, I deleted them long ago as I did everything from you in
the past.  There was no worthwhile information in them.  There were only
personal attacks, only "wasted bandwidth" as so many on this List like to say.

If what I say about HT's irritates you, then I suggest you do the same, just
delete any post you see by me on the subject or any subject.  It is obvious
that you have already made up your mind on the HT debate and there is no
information I have, and I have lots of it, that would be in your slightest
interest.   It would only irritate you to see me "wasting bandwidth" with it. 

I'm not interested in making any personal attacks on anyone but I certainly
will respond to any that are made on me and on anyone else and I will
especially be critical of anyone who berates or ridicules any brand or kind of
piano.  Yes, there are some brands and kinds of pianos I really don't care for
but you won't see me joining the crowd in their trashing.  I won't accept work
on square grands for example, but I still contributed the suggestion about how
to tune one by removing the damper assembly.  I even contributed a humorous
post about what to do with them and made it clear that I thought it would be a
joke until a theater company did the same thing quite seriously.

It is probably pretty obvious by now that I have a great interest in
Historical Temperaments.  I tune them exclusively.  I will not entertain any
more suggestions of "unethical" conduct however.  This is quite ridiculous if
you ask me and I've tried to explain why it is ridiculous.  I simply do not
"go around" tuning in ways that would shock and confuse an artist, performer
or regular customer without them knowing what I can do and with their full
consent and approval.  Just because I have said that I don't always disclose
the fact when I tune a very mild Victorian Temperament, not always, I am the
target of accusations of fraud, unethical and "possibly illegal" conduct (or
behavior, as Gina put it).  Tuning pianos with advanced knowledge and
techniques is vewed as a kind of "behavior" by her.  Of course, it is fine for
her to call it anything she wants, she is at the top of the "pecking order".
    Now that I have wasted all this time and energy, not to mention
"bandwidth", I don't have any left to respond to Michel LaChance's legitimate
question.  That will have to wait.
    You can keep this going if you want, Susan, but I for one won't read
whatever your response is, I don't have time for it.
     Bill Bremmer RPT
     Madison, Wisconsin