<Sigh>
My mistake.
For "everybody" read "everybody except Bryan".
<Another sigh - yes, really, sitting here at this keyboard on a nice frosty
sunny morning I looked out of the window and sighed>
Bryan quoted me out of context. In the incident that he alluded to
(I am working from memory) I wrote something very close to:
'we like it this way, and reading this thread will show who "we" are'.
Bryan apparently did not "read the thread", but decided that I had
arrogated to myself the right to speak for the entire ABC users
community, which was blatantly untrue.
On that matter (to do with key signatures and modes) I felt that
both sides had a case and it was ultimately a matter of opinion
and taste. We could not prove that it was better our way
any more than Bryan could prove that his way was best, but
we *liked* (i.e. preferred, as a matter of opinion and taste)
it the way it was. the key word was not "we" but "liked".
Note that I have phrased all that in the past tense.
The debate centres around the question:
"should ABC continue to require a key signature to be
given as a tonic+mode (e.g. Aminor or Cmajor or Ddorian)
or should it be legal to merely say what sharps and flats
there are?"
Bryan was writing a Noteworthy to ABC converter.
Noteworthy apparently has no way to specify the mode,
and apparently would not change this.
Bryan wanted ABC to change and allow the behaviour
that Noteworthy has, i.e. just give the sharps or flats.
Both sides had a case. Then debate will probably
continue but <sigh again> only a fool would want to further
rake over the details of who said what, when, to whom, etc..
"We" - a different, but overlapping we - are currently trying
to push the ABC standard forward. ABC started as a means
of jotting down British folk tunes. It's come quite a way since.
Speaking only for myself, I really do try to understand the
opposing points of view. (e.g. For my own music I have no
need for jazz chords, but I can see the need for them in ABC).
When Bryan said, "You are not entitled to an opinion if you
are new to the list." (I cannot think of a more polite or
constructive way to say this) he was wrong.
When Bryan said, "You are not entitled to an opinion if
you are not a developer." he was wrong again.
When Bryan said, "You are not entitled to an opinion unless
you agree with everything the establishment ... think." he
was wrong again.
Laurie
----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] Hi
Laurie Griffiths said -
>Everybody tries to be as polite and constructive as possible.
Not universally true in my experience.
>Everyone tries to understand the other points of view.
DEFINITELY not true in my experience.
Some "fights" happen despite best intentions.
Definitely TRUE in my experience.
Toni Schilling said -
>Are there any rules how to join the fight?
Although there seems to be a refreshing change in atmosphere lately, the
rules used to be -
You are not entitled to an opinion if you are new to the list.
You are not entitled to an opinion if you are not a developer.
You are not entitled to an opinion unless you agree with everything the
establishment (aka "We who like it the way it is.") think.
That last one can be tricky since they hold some diametrically different
views. Sometimes one person holds diametrically different views at the same
time.
Apart from that, you can say what you like.
Bryan Creer
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
