On 5 Jan 2006 at 23:03, Eric Dannewitz wrote: > Look, labeling someone with STOCKHOLM is cordial? It's > belittling. . . .
I don't see it that way, though I certainly did intend it as a criticism. But not all criticisms are "belittling" or insulting. In any event, in the timeline I established, I allowed that my own contributions to the discourse had departed from the cordial level by yesterday, which would exclude my assertion that you were sympathizing with your "captors." > . . . It > makes sense from a MUSIC prospective. . . . No, it really doesn't. It only makes sense from the point of view f the way Finale is programmed. > . . . That is what I was arguing. And > I was dismissed as having Stockholm syndrome. By some guy who isn't > even a musician. . . . Excuse me? I have an undergraduate degree in piano performance from the Oberlin Conservatory (with minors in music history and music theor), and a masters in musicology from NYU, and am presently ABD in musicology at NYU. I play piano, fortepiano, harpsichord, organ and viola da gamba (treble, tenor and bass). I have been an adjunct faculty member at NYU off and on since 1993, and a member of the faculty of the California Music Festival, coaching chamber music, lieder and playing continuo in the opera (along with coaching singers on recitative). I am a musician, and one with substantially more training than the vast majority of musicians out there (which doesn't make me a better musician, just more-trained). But I am not a *professional* musician, as I've only seldom gotten paid for making music. > . . . He can say he thinks the interface sucks to high > hell. Good. Fine. I'm not standing for being belittled by some idiot > who missed OCTAVE and DOUBLE in the index. I admit that I missed it. But the RTFM poster had an opportunity to point that out to me, and failed to take it. *You* had the opportunity to point it out, and did not -- I was the one who brought it up first on the list, which would seem to indicate that I'm participating in the discussion in good faith, since I'm admitting something that those who want to fight about it could see as a major weakness in my argument. In any event, after the fact I can certainly see *why* I missed it in the index, as I could not see how in the world transposition could have related to doubling (though one often transposes when creating doublings, which is probably what I thought the reference was to, and is, I guess, why I didn't follow the trail). But this has taught me the lesson to not assume that I understand what the reference in the index is referring to -- I need to follow all leads to make sure there isn't something going on that I'm disregarding. But, nonetheless, there are several independent issues floating around in this discussion. The two main ones, I'd say, are: 1. application design and user interface. 2. good documentation. As it turns out, the documentation should have been sufficient. But because #1 was so off in terms of the way what I was seeking was implemented, I disregarded what the index was telling me, since it didn't make sense to me that it was the answer to the exact question I had in mind. We all make selective choices like this when confronted with an index. We don't necessarily follow every single citation because we make decisions about which references are the ones most likely to answer the question at hand. In this case, there were so few that I simply should have looked at them all -- lesson learned. But in many cases, there are enough different possibilities that it makes sense to look at some of them first, based on one's understanding of how the particular topic actually relates to the exact question you're seeking to answer. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
