William Truitt wrote: > While I do not have any direct experience with R, C, & S boards, I have > no prejudice against them either, and accept both your claim and the > same from Ron (as respected and thoughtful advocates of applied R, C, & > S technologies) as being worth consideration. But, like you, I still > come back to where I started within this thread, and that is the WHY of > it. What is the explanation? Can any of us offer anything conclusive? > I don’t know if any of us have enough knowledge of the physical > phenomena to be able to do that, but it sure would be nice. No one has offered a cogent explanation of how a CC board works, have they? Ever? Yet it is accepted as the default standard, and anything else must supply details not required of the standard to qualify for acceptance as an alternative. What a fine system for advanced education! What has been offered is an isolated observation pertaining to RC&S boards. It's an observation, based on experience, not an all inclusive legal case. An observation doesn't require incontrovertible proof of anything, it's just an observation. I, for one, don't know why this is what it is. I've said it often enough that it ought to be on record by now. But the fact that I can't explain it doesn't mean it isn't real by virtue of repeated observation. We don't, for instance, have a clue what electricity, gravity, light, or life itself is, but we can work within their extant manifestations well enough to do some damage. So once again - I don't know why this is the case, but in practice, it is! When people who haven't been there get there, we can compare notes within the same system and maybe work out reasons why. I'd like to know. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC