I don’t have a problem with whistlemakers posting, nor with them not stating their status. They’re just fellow and equal members of this community. If their own sense of honour makes them declare their self-interest in a particular topic, better still. It can only increase the regard people have for them.
I’m only uncomfortable about overt or thinly-veiled commercial posts.
A couple of things:
Some interesting thoughts. Thanks everyone for posting.
For myself, I try to limit my whistle critiques to mass produced whistles. Since they are generally considered two different animals, this seems a fair division to me. Afterall, I am a bit of a collector - but not really high end whistles, though I have some. I collect very inexpensive whistles - I like my African, Yugoslavian, Hungarian, Peruvian, Polish, Israeli, Romanian, Chinese, and Indian (etc) whistles as much as I like any of my more expensive ones (like an Oak or Generation). To me, they seem to have more character (as far as collecting is concerned) than that developed when compressing plastic in a mold. That said, I have a fair number of those too 
Oh alright, I’ve got a lot of them!
I also don’t mind commenting on technique (though my advice is pretty worthless in the Irish realm) and areas of other such opinions. But I try to keep silent, or at least positive, when another maker’s whistles are in question.
Even in general I suppose we tend to be nice to people when we know that they’re listening. Knowing that makers are listening and participating certainly has an effect on the polity of the board. We are more likely to temper our comments than we might be otherwise. This is both good and bad.
It is good in that it fosters polite communication. Rather than swearing up and down about the rotten whistle that was just received, we probably speak more kindly.
This is bad in that this kindness sometimes masks systemic problems within the whistle or the quality of customer service, etc. Like Jim, I would prefer that the exchange take place in an honest way so that I can learn what I can without having to peel off two layers of kindness to get to the issue. I’m not advocating rudeness, however. It is one thing to say, “I believe there is a problem with such and such,” but quite another to say, “What a worthless whistle - a bird couldn’t make this piece of junk sing.”
Over at woodenflute there are several makers that are very active. Their flutes are rarely discussed and when they are I don’t really hear any negative comments. Perhaps they’re just that good, or perhaps there is some level of openness sacrificed when the makers have a large voice within the community. (They also tend to have less discussions on the equipment than we do, so maybe that influences things as well).
Well, I don’t know that I added much to this discussion, but to summarize my thoughts, I tend to treat the forum this way: If your mother bakes a cake and leaves out the sugar I don’t know anyone that would shout, “You’re a worthless cook!” More likely you would point out her mistake gently and then laugh about it later. If she continued to do it and every cake she made tasted like salted paper, you’d probably stop eating them and would let your friends know that while you love your mom, they probably shouldn’t eat her cake either. But all done in a spirit of love. (but then I AM a Bible thumper)
Erik
[ This Message was edited by: ErikT on 2002-03-09 07:50 ]
I think one can say pretty straightforwardly
what’s the matter with a whistle in
a matter of fact way. The high end
of Acme whistles is quite shrill, the
bell note weak, and the C sharp is
flat. That’s why I don’t like em.
That sort of report is to be encouraged,
for the benefit of all–of course
such a report may be controversial,
also to the benefit of all. I would
like more of that.
I leave it to whistlesmiths to decide
when they should or shouldn’t post–
as far as I’m concerned as long as
they stay within Dale’s guidelines,
it’s fine with me; indeed, welcome.
And what I would hope, given all
this intelligence from all involved,
is that we’ll put the best construction
we can on what people post, err on
the side of inclusion, err on the
side of not questioning people’s
motives–unless something really
egregious is going on. My 2 cents.
When you enlarge the hole the pitch goes higher. Lowering the pitch is a trade secret.
Mack
On 2002-03-09 -9:02, jim stone wrote:
And what I would hope, given all
this intelligence from all involved,
is that we’ll put the best construction
we can on what people post, err on
the side of inclusion, err on the
side of not questioning people’s
motives–unless something really
egregious is going on. My 2 cents.
I’ve always thought it was rude to take offense when none was intended.
With “Susato” brand whistles now being over
50% of our total business I feel it is
important to monitor this board and see
what people are saying and I do so 3 to
4 times a week and I do care and hear what people are saying about our whistles and
some other topics on the board are of
interest to me as well. I’m all for
a very open forum and it seems it has
been for the most part. I don’t post a
lot but if I feel misinformation is
circulating and it certainly does at
times I will speak out. We all should
just think hard about what we say in
a public forum and how we say it
before we say it. I know it’s terribly
idealistic of me human nature being
what it is but let’s all try to keep
ego’s in check. My 3 cents worth.
Kelhorn Mike
Neil, a quick OT comment
on your earlier post about people
with inconvenient views getting silenced
in academia–my conservative political
and social views nearly
cost me my job. My wife, also a philosopher,
has kept her views secret from her
colleagues. Sad that
the place we have reserved as an oasis
for free discussion is arguably the
single most dangerous place
in the USA to think for oneself! Best
On 2002-03-09 00:27, ndjr wrote:
Something that may be worth explaining is that I live and work in a university environment. Nowadays, people with inconvenient opinions are routinely silenced in such places, and I’ve developed an extremely short fuse with regard to those who think of themselves as the Thought Police.
Does it strike anybody else as ironic that it is SteveJ who gets saddled with a Thought-Police tag here?
Steve was responding to JimR, who had not participated once in a 7-page thread and who was now telling us to take a break from it. Steve did not “make a charge of fault against, reprimand, reprove, chide, blame, and censure” 
against JimR, but merely said:
StevJ wrote:
On 2002-03-08 00:59, jimr wrote:
It’s time to take a break and play some music.
Jim RementerExcuse me, Jim, but your post would appear to be an attempt to curtail the discussion. Coming from you, in view of the nature of the discussion, this is hardly appropriate.
It’s hard to put it any more mildly, I think. Neil, if you are concerend about the free expression of opinions it seems to me that you should welcome SteveJ sentiment to not take a break from an interesting discussion, simply because it might be unwelcome to a high-end whistlesmith.
(It also seems to me that an unhampered flow of ideas is encouraged by reserving strong terms, like reprehend, for strong cases. A mouse is not an elephant even though both are quadruped land-dwelling mammals.)
Two general points:
/bloomfield
[ This Message was edited by: Bloomfield on 2002-03-09 14:20 ]
Actually, anyone who might be in a position of a conflict of interest can recuse themselves. Sitting on town boards as an architect I have had to officially recuse myself from debates inwhich I might have a vested interest.
In this case, whistlemakers on a whistle board do indeed have a vested interest as architects on planning boards often do as well.
Erik
This is really a wild tangent, I realize. But Anglo-American legal terminology reserves “recuse” for judges. That does not mean that others do not have conflicts of interests that would disqualify them or lead to their abstaining from votes. IIRC, German uses the term Befangenheit exclusively for judges. (and interestingly, but also iirc, German judges cannot recuse themselves but must be recused by the court.) But after the ebay-transcription discussion I’d rather not get into a legal discussion. 
/bloomfield
[ This Message was edited by: Bloomfield on 2002-03-09 14:52 ]
Well then I think ‘recuse’ is used
as a figure of speech when applied
to architects and whistlesmiths.
‘Defeasible’ is another word
that has a purely legal dictionary
meaning but is often used to describe
any plausible position that
might be defeated by further evidence.
Arcane, I love it! So much so in fact
that there is an apparent conflict
of interest in my even writing this
note. Je recuse!
Moi, je refuse!
/bloomfield
[ This Message was edited by: Bloomfield on 2002-03-09 17:47 ]
You refuse to recuse? J’accuse!
Sorry to be tardy in replying to those I’ve been conversing with, but we went to a Lunasa concert in a neighboring city yesterday evening. If I get time today, I’ll review it for those who may be interested.
On 2002-03-09 12:10, jim stone wrote:
Neil, a quick OT comment
on your earlier post about people
with inconvenient views getting silenced
in academia–my conservative political
and social views nearly
cost me my job. My wife, also a philosopher,
has kept her views secret from her
colleagues. Sad that
the place we have reserved as an oasis
for free discussion is arguably the
single most dangerous place
in the USA to think for oneself! Best
Land of the who? Home of the what?
I am aware of that sort of thing happening to people. I’m very sorry it happened to you, and am glad at least you weathered the storm. I hope you weren’t sentenced to have your mind adjusted, er … , be politically re-educated, er … , sent to sensitivity training. ( I’ll get it right one day. )
Fortunately for me, I’m a geologist working in a geology department. Geologists like to think they have their feet on the ground … 
… and that means no-one has yet tried to make a robust debate into a punishable offense.
On 2002-03-09 14:14, Bloomfield wrote:
Does it strike anybody else as ironic that it is SteveJ who gets saddled with a Thought-Police tag here?
Apparently not.
Steve was responding to JimR, who had not participated once in a 7-page thread and who was now telling us to take a break from it.
Where does it say in the message board charter that individuals are required to have posted to a thread before they can post to that thread? They also participate who only sit and read.
Steve did not “make a charge of fault against, reprimand, reprove, chide, blame, and censure” >
StevJ wrote:
Excuse me, Jim, but your post would appear to be an attempt to curtail the discussion. Coming from you, in view of the nature of the discussion, this is hardly appropriate.It’s hard to put it any more mildly, I think.
And with that you have neatly disproved your own assertion. To be brief, it was clearly suggested that jimr was at fault for having suggested that we play music for a while.
Neil, if you are concerend about the free expression of opinions it seems to me that you should welcome SteveJ sentiment to > not > take a break from an interesting discussion, simply because it might be unwelcome to a high-end whistlesmith.
First, we have no idea that the discussion might be unwelcome to any high-end whistlesmith. It started out with a blanket condemnation of high-end whistles, and had wound it’s way to what I regard as a much more balanced assessment of the issue. In short, high-end whistlesmiths had benefited from the progress of thread, and jimr had no incentive I can think of to attempt to curtail it.
As I indicated earlier, he had no way to do that anyway. Others pointed out that the thread had faded, until StevieJ responded to jimr, and have suggested that we were already following jimr’s advice.
(It also seems to me that an unhampered flow of ideas is encouraged by reserving strong terms, like reprehend, for strong cases. A mouse is not an elephant even though both are quadruped land-dwelling mammals.)
I call 'em like I see 'em.
Best regards,
Neil Dickey
[ This Message was edited by: ndjr on 2002-03-10 12:38 ]
- The verb “recuse” has consistently been used incorrectly here. Only judges are either recused by their peers or recuse themselves. I would hope that whistlesmiths and judges are not set in one on this board.
From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:
To disqualify or seek to disqualify from participation in a decision on grounds such as prejudice or personal involvement.
From Mirraim Websters Collegiate dictionary:
Etymology: Middle English, to refuse, from Middle French recuser, from Latin recusare
Date: 1949
: to disqualify (oneself) as judge in a particular case; broadly : to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of interest
While the word has a specific meaning for judges, I do believe we are using the word in the “broader” sense, and it appears we’re using it correctly
Thanks for your expression of sympathy.
In The New York Review of Books (13 Feb
86–pp.43-44) I debated the abortion issue
with Jonathan Glover, an Oxford philosopher.
I argued prolife. Glover and I genuinely
like each other, and he’s an excellent
philosopher, so I think the exchange was the
single most cordial in the history of
the NYRBs, not to mention the abortion
controversy.
Afterwards some people in my
university stopped talking to me. My
colleagues in philosophy were horrified–above
all, they concluded I was their
intellectual inferior. The difficulty,
though, was that I was outpublishing them;
also, as it had never
occurred to them that there might
be arguments on the otherside of
these controversies (nuclear arms control
was another), they were unprepared
to meet them. Then something rather
touching happened–I watched as they
slowly and painfully made room in their
minds for the possibility of a
intelligent philosopher who not
only wasn’t a Marxist-Leninist,
but openly supported conservative views!
The transformation was accomplished
just in time for my tenure review,
thank heaven. Since then one of them has retired, another died of cancer, and
now I’ve left. I look back on
them with affection. We had nothing
in common except the
love of our discipline, and it carried
us through. Thanks again, Jim
[ This Message was edited by: jim stone on 2002-03-10 16:44 ]
Neil and Bloomfield:
Bloomfield, it’s nice of you to stick up for me (what an incisive legal mind!). I now feel I have my own personal protagonist as well as my Very Own Personal Antagonist - Mr Neil Dickey Jr!
ndjr wrote:
Something that may be worth explaining is that I live and work in a university environment. Nowadays, people with inconvenient opinions are routinely silenced in such places, and I’ve developed an extremely short fuse with regard to those who think of themselves as the Thought Police.
Actually Neil I think you just have a short fuse, period. But the funny thing is that, as during the last time you had a go at me, I get the feeling you’re actually fighting with someone else. Last time, you accused me of being a “self-appointed guardian of the Irish tradition”, or something like that, and it turned out you were really mad at some overenthusiastic reenactors, whatever they are. This time you imply that I think of myself as the Thought Police, but actually it seems you are projecting onto this board your frustration at things that have happened in your work environment.
I don’t want to discuss this issue any further: I’ve said what I had to say to JimR, and I believe I had a perfect right to say it, even if you don’t (and even if Bloomfield is the only other person in the Whole World who understands why I said it). But I do have a suggestion: next time you have a problem with something I say (it’s bound to happen soon enough), why not ask me to clarify what I meant and why I said it instead of launching into a big tirade? Could save you a lot of typing. OTOH, if you prefer to go on using me as an excuse to fulminate about someone else who has pissed you off, be my guest! You can even wish me “best regards” when you do.
On 2002-03-10 16:12, StevieJ wrote:
I now feel I have my own personal protagonist as well as my Very Own Personal Antagonist - Mr Neil Dickey Jr!
You’re welcome to believe that if it makes you feel better, but that doesn’t make it true. My disagreements are with those who adopt positions which are unsupportable. It’s nothing personal.
Actually Neil I think you just have a short fuse, period. But the funny thing is that, as during the last time you had a go at me, I get the feeling you’re actually fighting with someone else. Last time, you accused me of being a “self-appointed guardian of the Irish tradition”, or something like that, and it turned out you were really mad at some overenthusiastic reenactors, whatever they are. This time you imply that I think of myself as the Thought Police, but actually it seems you are projecting onto this board your frustration at things that have happened in your work environment.
You haven’t got a clue as to my thought processes and motivations, and for you to speculate upon them is most unwise. My comments were directed at what you said, which I thought, and still think, is unsupportable, and not at you. If you insist on taking this personally that is your prerogative, but your perception does not make it true.
I don’t want to discuss this issue any further:
Thus, and yet …
I’ve said what I had to say to JimR, and I believe I had a perfect right to say it, even if you don’t (and even if Bloomfield is the only other person in the Whole World who understands why I said it).
I have never denied this. I never once suggested that you should remain silent. You had the right to say what you said, as I did to take you to task because I felt you were wrong.
But I do have a suggestion: next time you have a problem with something I say (it’s bound to happen soon enough), why not ask me to clarify what I meant and why I said it instead of launching into a big tirade? Could save you a lot of typing. OTOH, if you prefer to go on using me as an excuse to fulminate about someone else who has pissed you off, be my guest! You can even wish me “best regards” when you do.
There never seems to have been a need for you to clarify this matter, and your suggestion to the contrary is a red herring. I understood you perfectly from the start, and understood just as clearly that I disagreed with your position. That has never been in question. I expressed my disagreement clearly, concisely, and completely. That is all that happened.
On 2002-03-10 13:47, jim stone wrote:
Thanks for your expression of sympathy.
In The New York Review of Books (13 Feb
86–pp.43-44) I debated the abortion issue
with Jonathan Glover, an Oxford philosopher.
I argued prolife. Glover and I genuinely
like each other, and he’s an excellent
philosopher, so I think the exchange was the
single most cordial in the history of
the NYRBs, not to mention the abortion
controversy.
A magnificent accomplishment, and you’re welcome! We’re on Spring Break this week, so perhaps I’ll have time to go look up that article.
What you describe as occurring in your department is a common failing in modern life from the “media” through university campuses and on to business and other private organizations: They don’t realize, or aren’t willing to admit, that fully half – or more – of the country exists. When that “other” half cannot be ignored, the differences are cast as being between good and evil, so the possibility of principled opposition is not recognized. The last time we got this polarized, we fought the bloodiest war in our history. You were fortunate in that your colleagues possessed sufficient intellectual honesty to re-assess their positions, even to recognize that they had become untenable. I hope that you have found a place now where you can be comfortable.
We live in very dangerous times, and for many reasons.
I find it a little difficult to characterize myself politically, but you’ve no doubt guessed that “conservative” comes the closest.