Hi Ron,
I think I'm learning to "control myself" on this
list, and "stick with the point", but a few ( ahem )
of us still seem like to "stirring things up" ----
just to watch them swirl.
Your contributions are the most valued, and best
written of anyone's here, in my opinion.
The thought of your departure truly saddens me.
Sincerely,
Thump
--- Sarah Fox <sarah@graphic-fusion.com> wrote:
> Ron, it would be a pity if you left this group. You
> are one of the few
> innovators out there, and I've enjoyed your input.
> I've learned a lot from
> you.
>
> If I might leave you with an insight or two about
> why you really do need
> this list:
>
> I remember back during my graduate studies
> (="postgraduate" fer' you
> non-Yanks), I was working on a rather complicated
> and radical theoretical
> project. Obviously I was the one who understood it
> the most, although I
> admit to being baffled by much of it. A few other
> folks understood most of
> what I did about it. Most people regarded it as
> pretty "out there" stuff.
> I remember giving a talk to the Dept. of Electrical
> Engineering about my
> work, and within the first few minutes, they were
> all telling me that my
> entire premise was completely full of manure and
> that I, a lowly
> physiologist/biopsychologist, had little to show
> them, the high and mighty
> engineers. So I kept talking, and eventually a
> dumbfounded expression fell
> over their faces. I was witnessing a mass, "well
> duh" moment, having shown
> them a phenomenon that they had never considered
> might exist -- or that they
> had previously dismissed on the basis of faulty
> assumptions. If only I had
> my camera at that moment! I spent the next hour
> laying out a complicated
> theoretical development, and there were a lot of
> good head scratching and
> "ah hah" moments going on. I still hadn't scratched
> the surface by the end
> of the hour, but I had made an important connect,
> and by engaging in
> discussion, I had an "ah hah" or two myself. It was
> a very good hour in my
> life.
>
> Keep talking, and people eventually *will*
> understand what you are trying to
> do/achieve.
>
> Beyond getting your ideas out there/here, you might
> not be as inventive a
> person without us, even if we don't grasp or agree
> with what you are telling
> us. Talking with the EE crowd, and talking with my
> advisor, and talking
> with my fellow graduate students -- and with my
> spouse, and with my young
> children, and with myself, and even with my cats
> (!!) -- did help me to
> crystalize my ideas. Only my cats looked at me
> knowingly. Everyone else
> was at least mildly bewildered. But I found that
> the process of simplifying
> and refining my arguments was necessary in order to
> move on with further
> theoretical development. There were at least two
> theoretical breakthroughs
> on the project that would not have been possible if
> I had not kept
> simplifying, simplifying, simplifying, and
> explaining, explaining,
> explaining. If you can eventually explain it to a
> child, then you've made
> some real theoretical progress, and the next
> breakthrough is just around the
> corner!
>
> THAT is why you need us, Ron. We are your cats.
> Sometimes we growl and
> hiss, and sometimes we purr. But without us you are
> nothing (as every cat
> knows)! ;-) Take a break from us if you need to,
> but PLEASE come back,
> both for our sake and for yours. Keep talking and
> engaging, because I bet
> that is how you get your ideas.
>
> Peace,
> Sarah
>
> PS The same goes for you too, Del!
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greg Newell" <gnewell@ameritech.net>
> To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>;
> <ron@overspianos.com.au>
> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 11:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Was Fish, I see no further utility in
> the list.
>
>
> > Ron,
> > It greatly distresses me to hear you might
> be leaving us for a
> > while. You did once before and now Del has more or
> less. Seems the
> > greatest contributors to the forward thinking in
> this industry have been
> > pestered out of sharing their ideas and
> contributions. I have long ago
> > filtered the individual in question out of any and
> all posts coming in to
> > my mail box. The only time I ever read is when
> it's quoted from someone
> > else. I never seem to be amazed. Nevertheless,
> please come back! I, for
> > one, have learned so very much!! I hope to learn
> so much more!!!
> >
> > best,
> > Greg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 10:46 PM 2/19/2005, you wrote:
> >>Its Ron Overs here,
> >>
> >>Mr Brekne wrote:
> >>
> >>>Yes Ron, actually my words do encourage one and
> all (misguided or not)
> >>>to explore the world of piano sound to the
> fullest.
> >>
> >>The above remark was in reply to me, Ron Overs,
> not Ron Nossaman.
> >>
> >>I don't accept your spin! Your words certainly
> don't encourage me to do
> >>anything, apart from getting my 'blood up'. But I
> have no doubt that this
> >>will give you some degree of satisfaction.
> >>
> >>Yesterday, I concluded a post with the following.
> >>
> >>>Knowledge in our discipline is expanding all the
> time. We are living at a
> >>>time when 300 years of combined thinking has
> resulted in what we have
> >>>come to know as the modern piano. It is essential
> that this thinking and
> >>>evolution should be allowed to continue. Further
> progress remains
> >>>possible as long as we don't let the politics of
> the currently-successful
> >>>ones get in the way. We must always endeavour to
> work out what is a
> >>>worthwhile design feature, and what might be a
> dead end idea. The black
> >>>art of piano design is fascinating, and there
> remains an ocean of
> >>>improvements waiting to be found. As with the
> evolution of species, many
> >>>subspecies will come and go like the Dodo. Not
> all will be bad ideas, and
> >>>some may be worthy of resurrection. But new Dodos
> will come along as
> >>>well. We must use our judgement to establish what
> we believe to be the
> >>>best combination of established practice, past
> practice and future
> >>>possibilities. Getting the three together in the
> best proportion, when
> >>>building a new instrument, can be somewhat akin
> to jumping off a cliff in
> >>>the hope that there is a soft landing at the
> bottom, and not just rocks.
> >>>
> >>>You also have to contend with a multitude of
> 'technical' opinion, which
> >>>sometimes hasn't even been down the 'thinking
> road' you have taken. So
> >>>often this chorus will discount the new idea just
> because it is different
> >>>and 'not the way' their favourite manufacturer
> does it. It doesn't
> >>>necessarily mean that the new idea hasn't got
> merit, but you have to
> >>>somehow carry on through the 'thunderstorm' of
> disbelief which surrounds
> >>>you.
> >>
> >>In the last paragraph, from yesterday's post
> (above), my reference to
> >>'technical opinion' referred in particular to that
> of
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC