[pianotech] piano behavior - shrinking with H20 & alcohol - list mechanics

[David Skolnik]

I'm certain there are and, no, I've continued to depend upon my aging 
but functioning Eudora, to which I download and separately filter the 
various list options - caut from Pianotech at egroups from 
pianotech at ptg.org, etc.  Always individual, never from digests. 
Unfortunately, you were deflected by the term "thread".  In this 
particular case, I'm talking about a problem on our older, esteemed 
pianotech list, not the new one.  I was pointing out that the 
'thread'  (Rick Ucci) seemed to be responding to a post (from Chris 
Storch) that I, for one, never received.  That, in conjunction with 
other comments about transmission anomalies made me wonder what was happening.

I continue to wonder why there is no further discussion about the 
disposition of this list.  You would say to me, well how come you 
haven't said anything.  You're right. I'll try once more. Not here.

With regard to threading on the new list, while it may not be the 
most egregious flaw, it has been a glaring one for me.  Even allowing 
for your principled refusal to accommodate the rigidity of the reply 
mechanism, to wit, every one of your posts becomes a thread unto 
itself, the insanity of the organizational algorithm (again, of the 
new list) is not chronological, but rather, by the tree of 'last 
reply' (my description).  I don't even want to talk about it 
here.  It's (to me) insane, and irrelevant.

The absence of spell check...now there's a real disaster in waiting.

Meanwhile, what's the chance that my original question might be 
addressed, or at least deemed equally irrelevant?

David Skolnik
Hastings on Hudson, NY





At 01:06 AM 11/27/2011, you wrote:
>On 11/26/2011 10:15 PM, David Skolnik wrote:
>>I don't get what's going on. I sent the first post with the current
>>subject on 11/21. The next post to that thread that */I/* received was this:
>
>This continues to confuse me. Are you reading the list traffic in 
>total and sequentially, or selectively by thread?
>
>If by thread, you give yourself to the random whim or outright 
>incapacity of the futzware, and deserve what you get as a result. 
>Reading sequentially, threading is a non-issue.
>
>There are, in my opinion, vastly more important dysfunctions in this 
>pitiful system than threading issues.
>
>Ron N