"Pecking Order"

[Lance Lafargue]

LIST,
I've been off the list for three days (weekend) and am now GLAD I was. 
This is ALL food for coronaries.  LET'S MOVE ON.
Lance Lafargue, RPT
New Orleans Chapter
Covington, LA.
lafargue@iamerica.net

----------
> From: Billbrpt@aol.com
> To: pianotech@ptg.org
> Subject: Re: "Pecking Order"
> Date: Saturday, January 31, 1998 11:24 PM
> 
> 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