no technical content WARNING - RANT

[Horace Greeley]

Ron,

Bravo.

I do not feel much like a "revered name", but your description aptly 
matches my own assessment.

Thank you.

Horace



At 10:14 PM 12/17/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>List,
>An observation or two, if I may.
>
>1: If the complainers of the lack of technical discussion would post
>technical discussion instead of complaints, there would be a higher
>percentage of technical content in this List. This ought to be self evident
>to everyone, but apparently is not. As the technical content diminishes,
>the chit chat traffic increases. If you don't like the chit chat, bury it
>in technical discussion. Overwhelm it with pertinent data. The fact is that
>if someone says something interesting, people will be interested. If not,
>it seems that people will just complain.
>
>2: When a technical discussion is in progress, there are normally only two
>or three participants of the dozen or so who are willing to join technical
>discussions at all, none of whom are the habitual complainers of the lack
>of technical content.
>
>Why don't the complainers join in when there is a technical discussion in
>progress? They're awfully quiet when the information is flowing and only
>tend to surface and get noisy when it stops. Who's getting the benefit of
>whom here? Why do they offer so few of the technical observations and
>comments that get these discussions started? Where is their contribution to
>the much bemoaned deteriorated content of List traffic? I see precious
>bloody little of it. If you want to know where the revered names of the
>industry that used to traffic this List went, my guess is that they didn't
>see any point in hanging around when so few of the List subscribers were
>willing to put their egos and knowledge on the line for public scrutiny and
>dissection when they got so little in return from the majority. This List
>isn't intended as a school for lurkers complaining when the curriculum
>doesn't meet their demands, it's a forum for the exchange of ideas and for
>discussion of all things piano. We're it, folks. Any technical discussion
>that appears here is generated by us. That's US, people, not HIM, not HER,
>not THEM - US! That's ANY of us and ALL of us. Anyone that's learned a
>nickle's worth from this list owes it a dime's worth back, and if all of us
>paid our debt, we'd be swamped in technical discussion. Those that
>contribute little should complain to the degree to which they contribute
>when they don't like the way the List is going - seldom, or not at all.
>Rather than crying that the List is wasting their time and not teaching
>them anything, they should be teaching the rest of us some of what makes
>their time so valuable. In my considered if not humble opinion,
>consideration is earned by contribution. Help, don't just give us another
>junk post to delete.
>
>Note: The subject heading says "no technical content", so it's likely that
>the folks this was intended for won't read it anyway, and there's the pity.
>For those who are actively contributing technicalities in an attempt to
>make this List work, please disregard the above, with my congratulations,
>gratitude, and apologies for wasting your time.
>
>
>Ron N