DB

[Big Jake]

[histrumpet]

[Big Jake]

Yes histrumpet

Williams request seems very reasonable and Walters response was very harsh. After all Walter proclaimed that it was easy for him to recall the ground work and labels certain posters as detractors. So there should be NO difficulty in Walter providing a suitable answer to William and providing the info that WB requested.

Walter posted:
"As I read Tom's account of a slander lawsuit being behind John's dismissal, it was easy for me to recall that the groundwork for this action had been laid by many of John's detractors. "


Jake

[trickg]

First of all, slander is spoken, not printed so what we would be talking about here is libel, right? Am I wrong?

Sheesh, this is turning into such a silly, childish, he said/she said. It's boggling to me why we (myself included) have wasted so much time bickering with each other and playing word games.

All I know is that my perception (and perception is reality) is that John Mohan got kind of a raw deal and for what? Expressing his opinion? Challenging another method? Defending his positions? I've gone back through the Pops thread and I don't see anywhere that John badmouthed anybody or anything. He did state facts and give his opinions, but there is no crime in that. Maybe he was just a bit too blunt for some, but even still, that isn't a crime either.

I vote we get back to talking about trumpet and put this behind us. Anyone else?
_________________
Patrick Gleason
- Jupiter 1600i, ACB 3C, Warburton 4SVW/Titmus RT2
- Brasspire Unicorn C
- ACB Doubler

"95% of the average 'weekend warrior's' problems will be solved by an additional 30 minutes of insightful practice." - PLP

[William Bentley]

[Big Jake]

[_bugleboy]

William,

The Caruso position on tongue is that the tongue will follow the mouthpiece. Carmine didn't specifically advocate tonguing between the teeth, nor did he advise against it. Generally, as far as I know, he didn't prescribe a particular "correct" position or modus operendi for the tongue. But he does suggest that a young student pretend he is spitting a hair off his lip to get the correct feel of the attack position. This advice, and variations of it seems to be used by many teaching methods. With the Caruso approach, this is designed more to bring the lips together to commence the note,as opposed to having them apart, since you can't spit with your mouth open. When I pretend to try to spit a hair off my lip, my tongue goes right between the teeth in order to accomplish this. Carmine would not have disapproved.

I have found in the past that from time to time, it is helpful for me to exaggerate tonguing between the teeth when I want to reestablish the feel for that attack position.

Regards,

[Lee Adams]

[_bugleboy]

PG: First of all, slander is spoken, not printed so what we would be talking about here is libel, right? Am I wrong?

CR: Patrick, I think you're both right and wrong. Strictly speaking, as in a court of Law, I believe you are correct. As I understand it, slander and libel appear to be used in Law to differentiate between the spoken word and the written word. In everyday usage, it is just as correct to say that something is slanderous whether it is written or spoken. In discussions like this, everyday usage is the accepted format. This is the type of point that is argumentative in a discussion like this rather than one that truly contributes to a resolution and understanding of the issues being discussed. So why bring it up?

PG: It's boggling to me why we (myself included) have wasted so much time bickering with each other and playing word games.

CR: In light of your introduction of the legal definitions of slander and libel it seems to me that it is yourself whom you are accusing of playing word games. And if you feel that it is just a lot of bickering and a waste of time, why do you do it?

PG: ....... my perception (and perception is reality) is that John Mohan got kind of a raw deal .........

CR: It was perceved (and, as you say, perception is reality) by the SA that JM was no longer following the behavior guidelines expected of a moderator

PG: I've gone back through the Pops thread and I don't see anywhere that John badmouthed anybody or anything.

CR: I agree with you. So what's your point??

[trickg]

CR: Patrick, I think you're both right and wrong. Strictly speaking, as in a court of Law, I believe you are correct. As I understand it, slander and libel appear to be used in Law to differentiate between the spoken word and the written word. In everyday usage, it is just as correct to say that something is slanderous whether it is written or spoken. In discussions like this, everyday usage is the accepted format. This is the type of point that is argumentative in a discussion like this rather than one that truly contributes to a resolution and understanding of the issues being discussed. So why bring it up?

PG: I bring it up to clarify the legal definition and to my knowledge, there is still a difference in the every day usage between slander and libel. Unfortunately, most people really don't know the difference and I think that it is funny how someone would bring up the mention of a "slander" lawsuit when there really can be no such thing, at least not pertaining to this forum, since this is all printed and published. By the way, spoken or printed, as long as the person who issues the remark qualifies their statement as being their OPINION, it is neither. If you will go back and look at John's posts, you will see that whenever he comes down hard on anyone or anything, he pretty much always states that it is his opinion. I'm not playing word games, just making a clarification and as long as you say that it is an opinion, your butt is covered against both slander and libel. Of course, I'm not an attorney, but this has been my understanding from what I've studied. (At one point, a neighbor of mine was slandering me around the neighborhood and I enlisted the help of an attorney who is a HS frined of my wife's to quell their slanderous activities.) Oh, one more thing, it's only slander if it isn't true and can't be substantiated with fact.

CR: In light of your introduction of the legal definitions of slander and libel it seems to me that it is yourself whom you are accusing of playing word games. And if you feel that it is just a lot of bickering and a waste of time, why do you do it?

PG: There is a difference between playing word games in a he said/she said and making a clarification on a legal definition. I'm not taking words that someone has posted and worked them in a way as to use them against them. I just thought it would be helpful if there was a clarification made that libel is printed, slander is spoken. It's apples and oranges really.

CR: It was perceved (and, as you say, perception is reality) by the SA that JM was no longer following the behavior guidelines expected of a moderator

PG: Ok, point taken. However, you seem to be quite argumentative yourself sometimes, although your tone is somewhat lighter than is John's, yet you are still a moderator of a forum. Even still, in my opinion, that doesn't warrant your removal as a moderator, which I'm beginning to believe really isn't that big of a deal. By the way, I'm curious, is there a place on the Herald that displays the rules that a moderator must live and post by in order to remain a moderator? That would clarify a lot of things if there were actual rules pertaining to the issue and not some ambiguous, "Well, he wasn't acting like a moderator should." By who's definition or opinion? I understand that the Adminstrator pretty much has absolute power to govern the forums as they see fit, but I am curious to know just what was the straw that broke the camel's back.
---------

[spanky]

it depends on what the meaning of the word "is", is.

didn't the SA say there was no legal action threatened, in any way??

you guys just like to debate. this has nothing to do with anything except who can win the next play on words. it makes me laugh though, keep it up.

[histrumpet]

[_bugleboy]

PG: there is still a difference in the every day usage between slander and libel.

CR: I think that "slander" is probably being used in a more general sense in everyday usage, (to refer to both the written and the spoken word, the way WB was using it), and perhaps "libel" might find more common usage as a reference to something written. But even "libel" could refer to the spoken word in loose usage. Both terms refer to the same act, however, i.e. a defamation of character that is malicious and false. And my point was that you were playing a word game by suggesting that the legal distinction between the two terms be observed. The nature of the statements wouldn't change by interchanging the terms so why make an issue of it? If it was me with whom you were arguing, and you insisted on this distinction I probably wouldn't quibble about it and would comply. The net result being that a few extra posts would be involved to establish this distinction which, perhaps, could have just as easily been overlooked on your part. And then the discussion would move ahead without altering the positions of either side that had existed before the distinction was made between the two terms. ......... Whatever.

PG: It's apples and oranges really.

CR: Agreed.

PG: you seem to be quite argumentative yourself sometimes, although your tone is somewhat lighter than is John's,

CR: Argumentative?? Maybe in the eye of the beholder, which in this case might yield different perceptions of reality.

PG: yet you are still a moderator of a forum.

CR: There is nothing unprofessional about engaging in a debate or a discussion. The issue is WHERE and HOW.

PG: By the way, I'm curious, is there a place on the Herald that displays the rules that a moderator must live and post by in order to remain a moderator?

CR: Scroll down to the bottom of this page and click on "usage agreement." In there you will find the rules that you agreed to when you joined the TH. I think the main difference between moderators and the general membership is that the moderators are expected to follow those rules.

PG: John was really blasted for some of his comments on the Pops thread,

CR: Blasted?? I think it was more a case of being called to account for irresponsble statements. My own response to JM was to point out how unsound his reasoning was. That is certainly not blasting someone, especially in the very polite and well mannered way in which I presented my argument.

PG: He stated facts and gave his opinion

CR: This was part of the issue, did he, in fact, state the facts?

[John Mohan]