Dave Lampson <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>In the past, I have not encouraged discussion of the list on the list
>because I think it is both off-topic and uninteresting, but if you have
>some concern in this area, let's get it out now.  We'll discuss it here
>for the first and last time, so vent if you have something you need to
>get off your chest.  I will respond honestly - perhaps too honestly -
>to any concern you have.

Stand up and get counted!:-)

After some discussion about things arouse in another group, I though a
little of this.  And I think I wouldn't consider it to automatically be
"off-topic" (although I could think it risks to quickly fall down to that),
neither I think a discussion about how foras for discussion shall and do
work is "uninteresting" - Rather I would think it to be very interesting.
But OTOH I could agree I believe also, discussing this list on THIS list
would probably not be very productive or constructive for many.  And I
don't mean that as anything specific for this list, but for fora in
general.  I don't think discussion on the own forum in the own forum
would actually lead anywhere, but I am not completely sure it should be
explicitly forbidden either.  I am not sure on the latter, but OTOH I am
glad that that is not my decision to take either.  I believe most of the
listers are insightsful enough to see the ankwardny it could be to try to
discuss MCML on MCML (Or forum X in forum X).  But if the listowner gave
one reason (and there are many acceptable to choose from) for a request
not to discuss it right HERE, I could with good chance accept.

But, anyway, if there is ANOTHER open, public, forum of importance in
the classical music society, I think discussion on it should be allowed.
I certainly don't think we should be allowed to cross-post replies over
the lists and such things, but I think the other foras should be allowed
to come under our discussion as phenomeons, what they mean for classical
music, how they eventally promote it, and other similar aspects, and so on.
I'm not sure if such discussion is actually explicitly unwelcomed on MCML,
but I have never seen any such discussion occur either (but I wasn't
subscribed all the time).  Should it be unwelcome, I can well imagine that
the reason is simply; having such a discussion on-line would include that
the moderator gets many post which would be diffucult to decide what to
do with as they would fall in the greyzone for several things that could
possible be unhealthy for that forum if interpreted illwillingly.  To make
it a bit more concrete, one possible such thing would for example be that,
upon individual subscribers posts scolding other fora, the accusation could
externally arouse against the listowner that he tries to use his forum for
propaganda against other fora for that or that purpose.  And that could not
just harm the listowner, but in worst cases also harm classical music more
widely.  I don't think that most people who I care about listening to,
would swallow such accusations as truth in most cases, but those are not
the same as all people either.  If I were listowner I would think it very
frustrating to have to chose between forbiding such discussions and force
rule and censorship, and being open an allow such discussion with a good
intent risking to get shit in exchange for it.  To allow these kind of
discussions is a question about the belief one has in the good will or
stupidity in other people.  Again, I am glad I don't need to take this
decision.

- - -

I have been, and is, critical to certain things about the list and Lampsons
policy about it, things that I simply don't agree with and would do very
different.  Still, if I like the work itself he does or not, I would in any
case feel ashamed with myself if I hided my admiration and respect for Mr.
Lampson for the initiative he took for the classical music society when he
did something more then just having ideas, and started a concrete project,
and taking the effort to spend much work and time on it.

Personally I think Mr. Lampson does very good in some ways, and is wrong
in some ways.  I am a critic on some points, and I make no secret of it
infor Lampson.  But if I have an idea about how I would do it, the more
meaningful thing to do is not to say "I think Listowner X does that and
that wrong".  Better thing to do would be to tell people "This is how
I want to do it", and why.  And then I would like to use any forum for
that, what I think I should be allowed to, as long as I try to be more
constructive then just complaining on what is.

I once attended a meeting where the future organisation of the School was
being discussed.  Then a professor of philosophy (unfourtunately) asked
for the word, and then he said as reply to another; "But it is now so,
that we who sit in this corner, we want to have a GOOD school!".  I have
never heard anything so silly.  There are no people in the world who don't
want a GOOD school for their children.  And it is the same thing here.
It is just a thing about that we disagree about HOW this shall best be
accomplished.  But if we never discuss our own "organisation" (and that I
don't mean as discussing forum X in forum X, but as general phoenomeon), we
risk to miss a chance to make out with each other the advances of making it
this or that way in an aspect, and in worst case we will end up in such
erratic beliefs that "the others" don't want a GOOD school.  Therefore I
think it would be a good thing to discuss these matters.

Actually I believe that Mr. Lampson is as convinced about that the way he
does it, is better, as I am convinced the way I would do it is better, but
if I should actaully make a serious attempt to have Lampson change the list
into my way of doing it, better than discussing his list in other places
would be to discuss it with him directly to make sure everything I want to
communicate reaches him.  He can then listen or not, but if that doesn't
make my way I don't think any other way would do either, if that is what
I want to accomplish.  BTW - should Mr. Lampson, with the intentions and
wiew he claims to have, not accept that I am critical, I wouldn't consider
him more then a washrag, but that is not half as bad as what I would
consider him to be if he just gave up his passions and made things as
I want to have it at the first sight of me.

But I certainly agree Mr. Lampson is right that to join a forum and
complain on it for what other participants say or write there isn't
*interesting* enough is completely supersilly.  If one is displeased by
that, well, at least the forum is there and the other participants are
there; why just not go tell those participants why they are wrong, and
improve the discussion with interesting stuff.  Or leave it.  A choice as
free as being a listowner.  But what I wanted to address in this post as
being worth discussing, is not the forums quality as a matter of the rate
of irritability of what people write therein per se, but how these fora
function for CM and its society and development.

- - -

This became a rather difficult post to follow I believe as it should
require some intellectual copy-and-pasting from the reader to cover up,
but on the other hand, well...I try to sum some things up like this:

I think a constructive general discussion on the topic "fora for
discussion on classical music" is appropriate and a good thing, in its
differnt outcomings.  As a "List for CM" is regulary a list for CM, it
is a part of the CM Society, and therefore it can rightfully be discussed.
Discussing forum X in forum X will likely be a bit ankward (and I believe
most of the members see the doubtful point in it).  Complaining on a forum
is in itself perhaps not so productive, but if a constructive reasoning
should be possible to make, the fora should be ready to accept at least a
certain ammount of critcism as part of that argumentation.  And when coming
with criticism against a group, it ought to be a good thing also to
distiguish -how the group works in accordition to the own guidelines set
up for thesame- and -how the group works in the society as whole-.

Also drew my interest:

>Likewise, being a moderator puts one in a strange position as a participant.
>If I post something it's not Dave's opinion it's The Moderator Speaking.

I see the problem and I have thought of it many times a post has come from
any of Lampsons addresses.  I see both advances and disadvances with the
differnt options here.  I lean to think the best would be when the
moderator would chose not to discuss at all as participant, only posting
about technical matters as moderator.  But I can imagine how hard this
could be to do, with a lot of frustration included, and I can't swear I
would manage to do so.

Geoffrey Gaskell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>It's not broken, so why fix it?

I have never been in a place where I was satisfied with absolutely
everything.  And I am glad for that, because had I, I think I would have
found reason to question my sanity.  Good that at least one seems to have
found a Divine Room for himself.

Septentriontal Dave-Comment:

>[Thanks for the support, Geoffrey, but I must have broken something
>because no one is posting today.:-)  -Dave]

There could be several reasons for that. Pick the one you think suits best:

* You shot off to much to quickly comprehend and respond to in the same
shot. (A possibly positive possibility)
* People are shocked as they didn't expect this from You. (A possibly
negative possibility)
* The Listserver has delays in the delivering to You today. (A possibly
neutral possibility)
* Instead of sitting at the computer, people were out of office enjoying a
Good Friday (------------)

Denis Fodor <[log in to unmask]> on Lampson:

>His achievement ranks as a cultural one by now

A very good reason to discuss it then I think.

Mats Norrman
[log in to unmask]