Well the day the NPS starts dictating how I have to play my pipes will be the day I pick up my chanter and drones and go home. I certainly don't want any elders of that church telling me about being boiled eternally in hot oil (of any variety) because of my fingering technique - (forgive me) - or my taste in tunes.
Actually the church analogy works pretty well for me, and even though I'm unreligious I have a perpetual respect for the established Church over here (i.e. the C of E) which seems to be able to accommodate various shades of belief (some of whom absolutely hate each other) without actually falling apart. There is a sense of overall good purpose as well as some lovely cathedrals and great music. On that topic, by the way, I prefer the Proper Tudor stuff and don't like modern carols . . . but there you are. The C of E has been responsible for burning a few heretics at the stake, but by and large it has abandoned those practices since they don't attract new members. It seems to me that there is plenty of room in a healthy NPS for quite a few different ways of doing things. You can pick your own congregation if you like the way they do things, and stick with that crowd if it suits you. I still think a Peacock's Parlour, or alternatively titled area, would be a good addition to the grievously under-used NPS forum. I'd continue to use Dartmouth, which has been a great resource over the years. And I'd stick with the new Facebook group which I've found really interesting. But I do think that we need more resources than either can really provide these days and I agree strongly with what Mike Nelson has said earlier. Neither Dartmouth or FB provide any permanence for interesting threads. Even more importantly, neither is good for revising or withdrawing anything which is passionately or unwisely said . . which is perhaps what I'm doing right now. Francis On 27 May 2011, at 21:39, Inky- Adrian wrote: > Dear all , > Dartmouth is not a dedicated forum. The one on facebook is, although > it's got its limits. I'd rather not have our forum on the NPS forum > because they do not back what this new group stands for and I don't > agree that the NPS should get the credit afterwards. In fact as I said > before, the NPS lays down rules on how the pipes should look: stopped > ends, no shuttle-drones and no stepped bores. The NPS does not give > two-hoots on how they should be played. It does not recognise that > there is a correct way to play the pipes although in the 1800's and > reprinted in the 1970's (or was it the 30's?), a book was > written and published for the NPS with its backing. I have never seen > in writting or in any rule change that has changed the stance of the > NPS on this matter. So where has the change come in and on who's > authority, if there was any change on the rules at all? If there was no > rule change then I think the NPS should relook at this matter as you > cannot run a society when the NPS doesn't know what's happened in the > past and brushed it under the carpet and forgot it, if they did. > Now this is why I don't like to publish on Dartmouth , one has to > answer stupid questions instead of being in concordance in another > forum, where I was quite happy. You've had an invitation. Dartmouth is > not the place for the new forum but it is for this posting. If you > don't like it, lump it. I'm buggering of to a more pleasant forum > where we have intelligentcia. > -- > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
