Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Open letter to Mr. Baxter regarding the ban of Bill Bremmer

Dale, I'm conveniently uninformed about the missing messages, but I will say that there's been one particular yappy little dog nipping at Bill's heels saying that the ET tuning that's good enough for his soccer moms and church pianists should be good enough for anyone, and if Bill finally decided to kick him in the teeth, good for him. The little dog is not banned, I notice.

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!

Tempest in a teapot.

Bill knew what he was doing and suffers the consequences. End of story.

Not when an original thinker may have been mistreated.

Dear Frank:
Yes this site is your private property.
If it were not for your loyal users your site would be nothing.
Bill Bremmer IS one of your loyal users, and I for one enjoy his posts, and enjoy all the controversy surrounding them. If you wish to profiteer from the expertise offered from this forum then you should allow for some free speech. As long as Mr. Bremmer is not supporting genocide, his posts should be unmoderated and permitted. I would be tremendously offended if my post appeared in an edited fashion.
Besides a little excitement never hurt anybody......
sticks and stones folks...

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

Ken

If you readily admit this, then, how can one disapprove of any action taken by said owner? If I were to traipse into your yard with a group of people, by your logic, you could ask no one to leave regardless of their actions, be it to your liking, or not. Let's say you informed everyone in your yard that, "there will be no access to the southwestern corner of the yard" (notice you didn't say "please" which would make said statement an admonition, but rather you said, "there will be none", which infers a rule). Some, however, don't much care about your "rule" and make their way to said southwestern corner and plant themselves there. Now then, what do you do? You didn't ASK them not to venture there...you TOLD them not to. How many times must you tell them to remove themselves from the corner before you decide you don't want these people in your yard any longer? You shouldn't worry about it at all though should you? After all you're restricting their freedom right? I mean the reasons you had for not wanting them there to begin with are simply your own, and after all, it's ONLY your private property. Get a grip man...we'll wander through every corner of your yard whether you like it, or not.

Stores,

You're right. And you use a good illustration - it is private property and as such it will be run according to the desire of the owner. It would be WONDERFUL if everyone agreed about that, but hey, you put 100 people in a room and you will end up with at least 75 different opinions!

Bill will have access to the forums on 07-08-2010 23:19.

Ken

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.

Of course it's about rules. If there weren't any and it wasn't about such, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Break the rules one too many times and you really can't argue with the ensuing results.

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

That is exactly right....it is all about the rules. I used to be a part owner of a nightclub. We had rules. You come into my lounge and act like an idiot and you found yourself escorted to the door.

Same here. This is Frank’s lounge. You are welcome to come and voice your opinion; act up and insult Frank’s other guests and you will be shown the door.

I have only been here for a little over 2 years. When others have been banned from this forum or emotions have broken through to the surface in discussion (or argument whichever way you would like to state it) I have witnessed the owner and the moderators take some tremendous shots; some of those shots have come from me too.

But through it all they have remained steadfast at their responsibilities; one has to realize the mental and emotional toll this must take. Who among us would like to take that on for free every day and night as well as the usual things we must do daily to scratch a living from the dry earth.

I would not have the temperament for such a responsibility. A smart man knows his limitations......

I followed that thread about sotto voce. If I asked a guest in my club to shape up and they did not, then they were out for good.

There is no such thing as free speech unless you own a newspaper. Then you can print whatever nonsense you like.

This is not a public forum. This is a privately owned forum that happens to serve the public. Anyone is welcome to join AND FOLLOW THE RULES.

Difficulty understanding that anyone?

Hey, I ain't gonna teach no one to suck no eggs but surely if you get a surly PM you PM back - I won't be opening any more of your PM's? End of story? It's not as if a poster gets to mount (and therefore needs to mount) a defense before being banned.

It's about "rules" that can be twisted or invented as the powers that be see fit, and it's about rules that are selectively and arbitrarily invoked.

Don't pretend it's objective. (And going into someone's private lounge and acting "like an idiot" is not an apt comparison; this is about expulsion for any reason—or for no reason.)

You registered on June 2, 2010. Eleven days ago isn't very long. Does that give you enough experience to make such a forceful judgment?

As Wittgenstein said, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent."

I know whereof I speak.

Just a thought but if those complaining about the 'rules' were to open their own forums, they may begin to see the burdens and responsibiliies of running a forum as big as this one.

As I said before, some use public forums to vent and displace anger that should be directed elsewhere.

On that I speak from experience.

Just an idle thought, but the 'powers that be' need not be concerned - these threads always degenerate. I think because logic, like a sense of rhythm, picks and chooses its cohabitees.

Me experienced too!

So, inadvertently Bill has started another most interesting thread in PW. Seems he does (huh, did) that alot.

Maybe the moderators should select a member every month and ban them so we can start a good thread about it.

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