No, we have to read them. Especially when it's a response to a warning - as it was in this case.

Ken

I think, overall, this is an issue that falls into the category of "first understand, then seek to be understood."

I would like to relate a pattern that I have observed in many discussion threads on PW. To paint the picture, I would like to use my recent thread in Pianist Corner, "Beethoven Improved," as an allegory or analogy.

I riffed some Beethoven, and shared a recording of it. People said, "You can't do that!" Some people said, "You can't do that, you shouldn't do that, and I'm not even going to listen to it!" I said, "Here's what I was trying to do. Here are my artistic reasons. Here are some historical reasons why I felt free to do it." Most people still said, "Who do you think you are? Messing with Beethoven!" I said, "Please, try to understand what I've done." Some people said, "Bah. You are a nobody!" If there were a lot at stake in what I did, I may have gotten upset that people weren't taking me seriously, and allowed myself to be pulled into a downward spiral of insults and name-calling. But, there is little at stake in what I did to Beethoven. And, Beethoven will not be hurt by what I did.

On the other hand, there is much at stake at what Bill has offered in EBVT III. It is a legitimate and beautiful temperament, born from historical precedent and refined with sound practice. But, the pattern of discussion held "true to forum."

Bill said, "I've done something! It's important! I want to share it with you." People said, "You can't do that!" Bill said, "But I did do it. Look, here's what I did. Can you appreciate it?" They said, "It can't be done! If you did that it would sound terrible!" Bill said, "No, no! I know the numbers don't add up to your way of thinking, but it really works. Plus, there is historical precedent for what I've done. See? Here it is!" People said, "You're a kook!" Bill said, "I really want to be understood here. This is exciting! I'm not a kook, and I have credentials. Here they are..." People said, "Take your credintials and your kooky ideas and, well, you know what!" Then, when it became possible to share recordings of this wonderful new idea, Bill said, "See? I told you it wasn't kooky!" Some people listened and said, "Wow! You're right! I didn't think it was possible, especially with the way you described it. But I was wrong!" Some people said, "Bah! It's crap." Some people said, "I don't have to listen. It's too kooky to even consider."

All of this happened with quite a bit of invective. If you keep banging the same dissonant chord, and you bang it louder and louder, well, it gets really unpleasant.

I give Bill credit for sticking to his guns, both about the innovation in the temperament and about his credentials. They are both important. They are both germane. And, I suppose because Bill has a backbone, they both got him banned.

First understand, then seek to be understood. There are two sides to every story, and somewhere inbetween is the truth.

--Andy

It's about rules and more. Perhaps you haven't been here long enough to know that.

I don't think there is anything wrong with those that know more sharing and helping those that don't know as much, but when it comes down to being so attached to one individual that people want to flip out or commit suicide because that person is going to be out for a month....it seems slightly hysterical to me.

There's a good reason why they are called PRIVATE messages. I wouldn't consider posting even one I wrote myself.

The only reason I feel threatened by any of this EBVD stuff is that it seems to turn anyone who tries it into a raging paranoid! Must be the electrical charge in their underwear!

And here we go again...

I still can't find raging paranoia in the posts written by pro-EBVT people in this thread. The quality of the replies on the other hand, such as your own here, starts to trouble me.

I've had internet access for 15 years, so there's no reason to assume my familiarity with this place began on June 2. In fact, it goes back far longer than your own six months of registered membership here.

You can choose to misconstrue what I've written, but this is most certainly about what the Powers That Be "want it to be." That's what being the Powers That Be means: they have the power, they make the rules, and they make up rules when they deem it necessary to their purposes.

I'm not even saying that's unacceptable; I've acknowledged that this is private property, on which fairness and free speech needn't be part of the equation. I just see no reason to pretend otherwise, even if others think good standing is solely a question of playing by the rules—or that the dictatorship is a necessary and benevolent one.

No one called you any names, nor did anyone call you a nobody. Let's not get carried away here.

[quote by Pppat] "...And Bill can't defend himself here, so we have to go with the official version (as in interpreted by the moderators)..."

Yes Pppat, such is life. Same thing happens after a war, the winners get to write the new history books. Always been like that. The stomping of feet does not change this.

[quote by Pppat]

"...I find it wildly amusing and sad at the same time, this moderation of a forum in a country that I deeply respect for it's stress of the importance of free speech and free flow of information..."

Free speech in a heated debate is much like throwing a punch at someones nose. You have a right to do it, even here at PW, but your right stops at the end of the other guys nose.

It's déjà vu all over again!

There was a big tumult here last January when a respected and knowledgeable member who posted primarily in the Pianist Corner (over 6,000 posts in the course of a few years' time) was permanently banned—ostensibly for cursing a moderator in a private message after the member was threatened with suspension for something he did not do.

"Rules" are, without question, selectively and arbitrarily enforced. The way they are interpreted is completely subjective, and sometimes they get pulled out of thin air. For example, the member I mentioned was accused of repeatedly "derailing" threads. Which rule did that break? What does that even mean, exactly?

It means that other people are routinely granted license here to express their ideas, thoughts and opinions, but this poster was not. However many supportive friends he had here, and however valuable the contributions he had made, he rubbed a few people the wrong way—including Baxter and at least one moderator. In the end, public and private apologies to Baxter and to the moderator who had suffered the retaliatory insult in private for targeting this member for harassment—that's what a false accusation and threat is—were ignored completely.

All of this has happened before, and it will happen again. A few other people invariably claim they'll leave in retaliation and solidarity, but very few would choose to put principles before the fun they have here. Life goes on in any case—and goes on particularly well for the people who express themselves just as Baxter and his minions wish.

It's not about "rules" at all, because it doesn't have to be. That's just smoke and mirrors to make people feel better about being in a fiefdom instead of a democracy. It's about whether the powers that be like you or not.

There's nothing to misconstrue. You have A) Rule B) Rule broken C) Result of rule being broken.
It's just that simple. There is nothing between the lines. If you think there is, then it's only the lines in your mind. Oh well, I'm not here to convince you, but only to give a realistic point of view. That said...CONSPIRACY THEORISTS UNITE!!! lmao.

There's nothing to misconstrue. You have A) Rule B) Rule broken C) Result of rule being broken.
It's just that simple. There is nothing between the lines. If you think there is, then it's only the lines in your mind. Oh well, I'm not here to convince you, but only to give a realistic point of view. That said...CONSPIRACY THEORISTS UNITE!!! lmao.

And here we go again...

I still can't find raging paranoia in the posts written by pro-EBVT people in this thread. The quality of the replies on the other hand, such as your own here, starts to trouble me.

PPPat, your idea of a quality reply must be one in which you are agreed with and patted on the back. SEVEN titles after your name says a lot.