[pianotech] enough!

[David Ilvedson]

Another simple thing to do is make folders in your email program and move email you want to keep into them.   Example:   Piano stuff.   Then, as Barbara said, delete with vigor.   

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044

----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Barbara Richmond" <piano57 at comcast.net>
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Received: 2/8/2010 3:14:13 PM
Subject: Re: [pianotech] enough!



>Well, Clay, things on this list might not always go as you wish. My advice is to delete 
>posts before or after you've read them. You can always visit the archives when or if 
>you want to catch up. 

>Good luck with whatever your question was! 

>Barbara (one of the many women on this list) Richmond, RPT 
>near Peoria, Illinois 

>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Clayton Bean's Piano Biz" <pianobiz at verizon.net> 
>To: pianotech at ptg.org 
>Sent: Monday, February 8, 2010 3:57:49 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
>Subject: [pianotech] enough! 


>Gentlemen: 

>Haven't we had enough discussion, rambling, and sniping re Yamaha hammers, etc? 
>Please, you're clogging up my e-mail box . 
>I thought this email avenue was for seeking answers to problems. Am I misinformed? 
>Joe Garrett, Ron and Tom were kind to suggest an answers to my problem and I was 
>very thankful 
>- and I will respond to them after my next appt's result. 

>Thank you for your kindness gentlemen (Anna was also helpful and the only woman 
>on here so far) 

>Clay 

>----- Original Message ----- 


>From: PAULREVENKOJONES at aol.com 
>To: pianotech at ptg.org 
>Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 10:00 PM 
>Subject: Re: [pianotech] Hammer strike line. Was-----Yamaha Hammer Suggestion 


>Actually, Ron, this deserves a rational response; I might caution you that your 
>invective is unwarranted. I will say again, since you seemed to miss my point 
>altogether, that the differences between factory board and bellies, particularly S&S 
>CC boards and the more recent RC&S boards may account for the differences in 
>strike line that we are seeing. Two people, as you say, have indicated that there are 
>apparently demonstrable differences. I would guess that there are probably more. 
>This is still not a proof of anything as much as it is a surprisingly happy claim which 
>should lead us to ask why. Is it in the belly construction alone? You will say so. I 
>might agree, based on my own experience with 100's of new boards, all CC. No, 
>Ron, I've never built an RC&S board. How does this make me disinterested in 
>learning something "outside my marketable experience" whatever that means? And 
>to what semantic bullshit are you referring? You have a knee-jerk reaction going on 
>here somehow, perhaps to me, perhaps to something else. You've gone beyond civil 
>conversation here. I invite you to re-read what I've said so far and try again. I 
>spoke to factory belly/forefinishing on (assumed) CC boards. I'm not threatened by 
>anything at all; but you are certainly defensive of something. I'm as stupid as the 
>rest of us. If I've misunderstood anything you've said, consider me a willing, if not 
>very apt pupil. However, if you take my questions as intentional misdirection, don't 
>bother to answer them in the future. 

>Regards, 

>Paul 


>In a message dated 2/7/2010 8:36:36 P.M. Central Standard Time, 
>rnossaman at cox.net writes: 

>PAULREVENKOJONES at aol.com wrote: 
>> All worthwhile considerations. Yet it is striking, no pun intended, as 
>> has been pointed out, that RC&S boards _seem_ to need less hammer 
>> movement. 

>Why is this so threatening to you? Two people who design and 
>build these systems in the real world have indicated that it 
>is either less necessary, or altogether unnecessary to deviate 
>from a straight strike line for tonal purposes in a RC&S 
>board. If you, not having built boards like this at all, so 
>lacking any experience with same, know better than those of us 
>who have, why don't you inform us as to why we don't know what 
>we're talking about instead of weaseling around this semantic 
>bullshit? If you're not interested in learning anything 
>outside your marketable experience, that's your call, but 
>someone else might be. This information has been offered in 
>all honesty as real and verified as valid by building the 
>damned things and trying it. If you have anything real and 
>pertinent to contribute besides speculation and misdirection, 
>please do. 
>Ron N