Dear Jon,

Many thanks for your thoughtful message. Just to remove any
scintilla of doubt, I have not been in the least bit offended by you
or by anyone else on this list, and I am sorry if I have ever given
that impression.

As subscribers to this list we are indeed most fortunate. I have
great respect and admiration for every one of its many contributors,
both old and young, wise and foolish, interesting and boring, witty
and prosaic, learned and ignorant, makers, scholars, players,
enthusiasts of all kinds, from divers countries, with different
backgrounds, experience, knowledge, languages, beliefs, and
aspirations. We can understand and misunderstand, agree and
disagree, contribute or lurk silently. Occasionally threads go a bit
sour, and things may get said which are perhaps later regretted, yet
even then, it often helps to be blunt to clear the air.

Let's get back to theorbos. I need to send you another e-mail.

Best wishes,

Stewart.




----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Lute fraud warning, and concert notices.


> Craig,
>
> I understand your frustration with my pontifications. I have been
known for
> them for sixty odd years (which is why the domain is called
MurphSays).
>
> First, as to the warning on spamming. It was only a warning, and
based on
> twenty years of managing on-line lists - going back long before
the massive
> spam of today and the ease of that spam by the use of the road map
called
> the Web.
> I apologise for suggesting that a legitimate address (Lute Society
of Great
> Britain) was possible spam. But their message fit my rules,
developed over
> many years, for suspicion. None of us can check every site and
every message
> for legitimacy, but neither should we hesitate to express doubts -
they can
> easily be allayed by a polite message from one such as yourself
who knows
> the site and source. Too often I've seen a good list like this
blown by
> responding to an "unknown" message that purports to be real.
>
> I don't remember the trigger for my comment on the concert
notices, but I
> think it was an "all CAPs" opening. In internet manners that is
called
> "shouting", and is normally considered either "flaming" or "spam",
or just
> rude.
>
> But I can't fault your comments, you haven't seen my direct mail
to those I
> may have "offended", and their responses. I am not
confrontational, but I am
> also not new to strings or old music. Just to the specifics of the
lute, as
> defined on this list as specifically Renaissance. If Stewart is
offended I
> ask him publically here to say so, but he hasn't informed me of
any
> offense - unless you consider disagreement to be offensive.
>
> I don't know your lute, nor do I even know mine. I'm not even sure
what a
> lute is, given the many incarnations from the early introduction
of the Oud
> to Europe before the time of the polyphony of the Renaissance. It
is the
> early instrument played with a plectrum (oh hell, here we call it
a "pick")
> or the two finger pluck of the early Renaissance?
>
> You have been playing lute for four years, I have been singing
Motets and
> chants, and various ancient music for sixty years (started at
eight), and
> guitar (folk style Appalachian pickin') for fifty. I am also a
young and
> undereducated student of the lute, as such. But I have a bit of
background
> in both the music and the physics of the strings.
>
> You may easily avoid my emails, as can anyone else. Just set your
Message
> filter to ignore anything sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you are
using M$
> Windows you'll find that in the Tools menu under Message Rules.
>
> And this to the list, should any agree with Craig, as he implies,
then write
> me directly.  I am here to learn from you, but just because I am
learning
> the lute doesn't mean I have to forget all I know of strings and
how they
> work. My silly little flat back sounds a lot more like a lute than
it did
> when first made, and that is because of what I've learned here.
>
> Best, Jon



Reply via email to