socks

Hi pickers and grinners. Been in transition as they say, and not on the thread much. Some interesting stuff! Collections - I was researching a couple instruments for a friend, an old Gibson lap steel and a Rickenbaker, nice instruments. I get Vintage Guitar mag, it's a great source of information and resources on old instruments. More and more instruments are landing in the hands of "lay" players, people when who play or did at one time and who have an interest. I think that can be a good thing, in that when people who play have the money to buy vintage stuff and get the guitars they love they'll remain "out" rather than locked up somewhere. Right now I'm off for a week, chillin' and doing home projects and some goofing off. Waiting on a couple Epiphone Les Pauls I bought that should come in the next week or so. One for my daughter, one for me. Son's moving back home for a month or two, so he's got his fretless bass coming home. :)

In a social setting, amongst friends or business/work peop's, I'd want to be considerate of the other person's feelings, probably wouldn't blurt out an error if I heard it or saw it. I can think of a lot of circumstances where it would be right to make the correction but do it carefully. For instance in a presentation setting, where someone's reporting on something or presenting some information - if there was a typo on a handout or PowerPoint , I wouldn't red-pen it and note every error for the group while we were meeting. That would likely embarrass the presenter. I'd probably note them later, afterwards. I see situations where people do note every little item while a presentation is in progress and it always bugs me. It cuts the flow and I guess I interpret it as the person trying to belittle the other or show how "smart" they are themselves. That may or may not the be the case but it's the way I usually process that kind of thing. Unless it's causing the whole thing to tank I don't see the need to do it that way. Spellcheck corrrects spelling but not grammar, so if I wrote "bear" when I meant "bare" it wouldn't catch it. I see a lot of errors made in work product that are the result of that. Email - I stared (started) on email years ago, back in the early 90's and at that time it wasn't considered a formal means of communication for business. Everyone I corresponded with used whatever formatting they wanted. Cap's weren't always used, and everything was formatted with dashes and slash marks. That was more of a "geeker" environment. It's evolved quite a bit since then and it took me awhile to accept it as more than a basic and minimal form of communication. Being better with language than I am at typing, I have to watch out. I tend to make mistakes due to my four fingers and two thumbs typing technique. I still do view board postings like we have on GS as a hybrid form of communication that allows for some latitude. The internet has it's own form of language - "LOL", all of that, and I don't keep up with all of it. I tend to go back and forth between chicken scratch and some middle ground of normal writing form. My work requires using standards and guidelines, I use the A.P. style book, a dictionary and whatever spellcheck is available. I also have someone else read through what I've done too. Sometimes I just don't see an error right in front of me, but someone else doing a fresh read will catch it right off. I think of the saying "pride comes before a fall" in this context too. If a person sets forth as if they're the final word on a subject they're likely going to be critiqued more strictly. If I make fun of someone else's opinions or ideas and put mine forth as being superior I'm opening myself up to wider criticism, I think. Someone's bound to say "if you're so smart how come you can't spell?" And if my ideas are so grand and important why not take the time to make them readable? There may not be a relationship between what's written and spelling but if I come off full of myself I'm setting myself up to be taken down a noch. Notch. Naugch.

Excatapilla!!!

Aw, I don' get no respect on these x-way sites. Like last week, my wife's going to bed just as I'm logging on so I tell her "You go on to bed honey, I'll be up in a minute". She says "Up in a minute? What's that site called - Viagra?!" Aw geez, I don't get no respect. No respect, it's tough, tough I tell ya! I've killed more threads than a moth, I tell ya it's tough! Last year I did a thread - "What's your sign?" There was only one response - "Stop". So I responded, "Thanks!" and they answered "Can't you read???" Man, it's depressing, depressing! I get no respect, no respect. I finally hit 10,000 posts, and the Moderator sent me a message, "is this all you have to do?" I mean, I get no respect! I looked at my profile last year and checked it again last week to see who's been in - it said "Last viewed by: socks". I mean, respect? I got none. It's tough I tell ya, tough!

Oddly the x-way site idea was a mistake, initially. Little known but true fact - the original concept for the site was to be an "x-RAY" site, and intended as a service for dental technicians. Since it's like pulling teeth around here sometimes anyway, it was determined to go ahead with the x-way site concept. Really.

I don't have anything to add to the topic Shifra, sirsuessalot's words hit on something that's of overall concern to me too, though. Well said, bro'!

Jonny 'Go! Nuance - I was thinking the inflection and articulation of notes played. In digital sound, all the details of a note played have to be reproduced for it to sound "real". Just the note alone sounds dead. I was thinking that stuff, what it takes to make the music reproduce accurately. Used to be it was difficult to do that, but PC's are much more powerful now.

HCW, you make some excellent points, IMO. Thanks. As I was thinking again about the topic plagiarism, I took my temperature to see how hot the topic was for me and came up moderately cool. I think it does say something about character and gives a view into the mind of a person who would work that way. Having been at the Way Nash for so many years like you I think you've brought up a good point about the general feeling VPW had regarding ethical behavior. He talked a good game, but when push came to shove he did have sort of a *wink wink* approach to some things if it got what he wanted done. VPW used to go off on these tangents a lot where he'd talk about all the years he'd done this or that, and how nobody understood how much of this or that he'd done, and how much work he did and had done, etc. Listening to some of that stuff, I always knew he was rounding the corners off some things, and would kind of roll my eyes - "how many times are we gonna hear THIS story again", kind of a thing. Then get on with whatever we were doing. I was there and onboard yes, but there was a lot of stuff that I accepted as normal for working anywhere. A lot of bosses BS a lot, and have over inflated opinions of themselves and what they do. In VPW's case there was some of that, he was "the man", pres and founder. What're you gonna do, it's his operation. I expected it to expand and diversify and it did to some extent, but not nearly enough to build something that would last IMO. If he'd documented more things he'd have had to do the woe-is-me routine less. It would have been understood what he did and why.

Actually I would say, yes, Roy. For a Christian who wants to follow Christ and the New Testament teaching, there is going to be a desire to harmonize life with what Christ taught and did and what the bible teaches. I didnt do a good job above, what I'm trying to write is - if you're relating your first post to what PFAL taught, PFAL didn't teach what you seem to be saying it did. PFAL taught of needs and want - parallel with the Word, not parallel with each other. But that was about as clear as mud, the way he ran through it. Still the point was made. It also didn't try to analyze a person's need and want and define or direct it in that segment. That's the example of the red drapes. Regardless of how trite it was, (and I would say it was pretty shallow) the gal GOT her red drapes = The "greed" was the negative comparison - "Good supplies your need, not your greed". The idea of trying to direct our hearts' values by the Word - so they're in agreement with how God instructs to live could be said to make our lives "parallel" with the Word. It's definitely not a concept limited to PFAL. So that "key" as taught in an of itself isn't wrong IMO, although PFAL's teaching was confusing and vague. The idea of having some order to how we approach knowing and obeying God isn't wrong either, IMO. The way PFAL lists and insists that if you follow them step by step you'll "receive" what you believe for from God is what's incorrect, IMO and the believiing/law part isn't the biggest problem. My thought process on this goes - if you can't spefiically define what a person's need is, or if what they're praying for is "really' available, there's no way to guarantee a formula will work. Example - "prosperity" gets taught as a promose of God. How do we define prosperity? A person being provided for by God. So there's nothing to do there but faithfully pray to God throughout our lives to provide for us. All of the stuff about getting clear and concerned and that is just practical stuff and works for anyone - any dummy will do that or fail all their life except when stuff just drops in their laps, in which case most Christians praise the Lo'd, it must be from God, pass the hat. But if each person has to determine in their own hearts what they need and want - and I believe they do - no one else can guarantee it regardless of what "keys' they apply. Hope this is clearer, and it helps the discussion as it progresses. I gotta get parallel myself now...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Roy, in PFAL the Need/Want/Parallel portion was 'parallel with the Word'. Parallel being what seems like an odd word, but actually may be a good one to describe what he was teaching there. PFAL was teaching that what you need or what you want, or both - those things have to be "parallel" with the Word, or in agreement, harmony, with what the bible teaches. It was contradictory but exactly in the way you're describing. The impression he gave in PFAL was that need/wants had to be parallel or in harmony with each other. In fact, that is what it sounds like he's teaching part of the time and what many if not most came away with. PFAL didn't attempt to define what a need or want was, rather that the person defines that. You might need a car, and want a Lexus. So you pray, believe, etc. etc. as taught in PFAL and apply those "5 Keys" to receiving and what you "get" by way of answered prayer is what you "get". His point was illustrated more or less by the stor-ee of the lady and drapes. She needed drapes. She wanted red ones. VPW didn't give a hang about them being red but lo 'n' behold, drapes get hung and they're red. So if that's a need and want situation it illustrated the individual's part in determining the results with their "believing". Similar to examining any action taken by a person we could ask if there weren't other alternatives and there might be lots of them. In 1974 while I was at the Way Nash, this question was asked, what exactly did the Need/Want portion mean? And VPW stated to the 4th Corps at that meeting - "parallel with the Word". Part of the confusion we discussed was that in PFAL he moves his hands around, and while he's moving them "over" something as he speaks, it sounds like he actually means something else by what he says. He said to him it had always been obvious. PFAL was never changed to clarify this, was never changed to clarify anything, so it remained as it was. Emphasis on "was", as PFAL is pretty old in the can at this point.

Michael Jackson and Hilton should get married.

This comment is on the topic of plagiarism, which may actually be a side-saddle condiment to the ongoing discussion, but here goes: (intent to derail is deliberate, if that's the case) Anyway, the word for word comparisons of some of VPW's writing shows he pulled language directly from other writers. By the academic standards that were in place throughout VPW's lifespan, he would have been expected, if not required, to cite sources, use footnotes, etc. Despite some disagreement on the effect that would have on the readability of the writing itself, the use of small font 1's and 2's on a page and referencing notes at the end of a chapter or the bookwould impose a minimal amount of intrusion on the flow. Now, we can define all of those terms but I can easily say that everyone I know reads books and manuals laid out like this and manages to not go crazy or fall asleep. In fact, such citations are used to benefit. That's my "average man or woman" defense on readability, take it or leave it. So as to the practical effect of inline citations, I would fall to the "do it" side of the discussion, with a dose of "where there's a will there's a way". In other words, if the desire is to provide clear honest credit and information that way, a way can be found to do that if you want. 1. All I can say is that being approximately at the same age that VPW was when he was publishing the first versions of PFAL and RTHST, that's what I'd do. If I felt that Raf had best expressed an idea in an earlier writing, I'd let that be known. More specifically if I used his exact language in my own writing, I'd credit that, somehow or some way. Why? Again, "the average man or woman" would probably realize that while they were copying words from someone else's writing and including it in theirs as the best expression of an idea (say) that it would be the correct thing to do, since they hadn't written it and liked what was written by someone else and used it. "As Raf said earlier, yada yada yada. ". But just as easy to do that would be to not do that. I could argue against the need to do it, but that wouldn't change that Raf wrote it first, I didn't, and I used it. One reason VPW didn't do it I can think of is because he probably wanted to hide the fact that it had been written by someone else. But, but I can't prove that,...! Well, that's another discussion, but it's plain that by NOT making the appropriate citations he left himself open to that accusation and put the integrity of his work at risk. Why do that when it's so easy to avoid it? It's almost as easy to cite, than to not cite. It's even easy to include a clear statement as to what's going on, if that's the course chosen. But doing so would mean I'd - well, the average man or woman might - feel compelled to let the original writer know I was using their stuff. If they said no, I'd be SOL. Or would just go ahead and do it anyway, screw 'em. But if they said no, the cat would be out of the bag. I'd have to proceed in the light of day with what I was doing It's not just the ol' bad negative unbelievers who just want to tear down what the man of God is teaching, but anyone who would see this happening in the books. Seeing it requires an explanation, as the mind will recognize it when it sees it. Whatever the mind assumes or uses to explain it, if the brain is working the similarity will be recognized. IMO saying "Raf did a lot of work in this field and I've read all of his work on the topic" doesn't mean I've credited him correctly for taking specific paragraphs nearly word for word from his writing and using it. 1. See? :)

Hi waysider, I haven't been able to check out the videos enough to see what kind of gear that is - I will though, and see if I can get a read on it. I have seen some use of things like Leslie speaker FX, chorusing, that kind of stuff. Harmonica seems like it would be a perfect instrument for use of FX, especially now that digital technology can respond to nuance better.

Guster (we need you!)"Fa Fa Fa"

I'm not sure, I think the tamborine was a windup. Short Storee- many years ago I took a temp gig, playing bass for a lounge band. It was a good gig, money wise, 4 nights a week and all I had to do was rehearse once a week, and show up for the 4 gigs, Thurs. - Sunday. This band made the lounge band in the Blues Brothers look like heavy metal. It's a brief chapter of my music life filled with strange, strange events. This band indelibly marked certain songs in my brain, and even today if I hear them, I start to twitch. "Sweet Caroline" was one of them. "Yellow Ribbon" was another. You wouldn't believe the amount of self-medication required to play Sweet Caroline 4 times a night, 4 nights a week. :blink:

INteresting input as always I-Dan. Homologeo - I think Craig taught that as "homolegeo" due to a typo in his notes, which didn't stop him from rendering a True and Spiritual 15 minutes on that one word alone which he explained was first uttered by a Roman bath attendant in a towel snapping contest who, about to win the competition, was pulled off balance by his opponents second, at which time he yelled "Hey homo! Leggo my leg-oh!"

Be afraid...be very afraid... Note Micky Dolenz, acting like a drummer who's acting like an actor acting like a drummer who can't play the drums. And Peter Tork clapping mystically a nano-beat off-beat. Monkees Trivia: Steve Stills almost buffaloed his way into the Monkees, yes - he auditioned for the band.

Ooooh, okay. Sorry, didn't catch it. Nothing really, other than it was a grand piece of editing the way the guy put the two together like that, I thought. "I'm A Believer" was such a well crafted song, and so simple. I hadn't thought of the pirating angle. Neil Diamond who wrote it was a kind of master songwriter for that pop-rock genre. I thought it was kind of fun, nothing dark or cloudy about it.

Nice stuff, from Sonny Landreth. Thanks! Nice stuff, from Sonny Landreth. Thanks!

A la - can u explain, what are you talking about?

It is interesting Chathy. I read it and thought "holy mackeral!" Really.

It looks like it doesn't it, Chas? I realized seeing that photo how I don't know if I've ever seen a top with knots in it that size. It just looks stuh-range.

Hedges - this is my favorite song of his. It floats.

Cool Beatles stuff! Thanks!

Depends, but I don't find a practical use for placing the gospels in an Old-T, versus a "New" one. Yes, highly recommended.