RE: [Harp-L] Re: criticism

[J Compton <jofjltn4@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'll decided to go rushing in, even if there were a bunch of frightened looking angels standing at the door...
 
Jonathan Ross's post was mostly a critique of a harmonica performance.
Elizabeth's post was mostly a critique of Jonathan Ross's post.
 
The difference is that Jonathan's post was consistent with the purpose of the group, Elizabeth's was not.
 
My own touchy-feely disclaimer: I like Elizabeth.  I've never actually met her, I've only conversed with her a little online and I've occasionally disagreed with her (as is the case with this particular topic), but I still like her.  This isn't personal, or at least it isn't for me.  (I sure hope there weren't people who were just waiting to pounce on Elizabeth, because that's not right either...and it almost feels that way.)  The "Thumper rule"* is just one of my hot buttons...it makes me uncomfortable when people are chastized for saying what they think in a venue where they should be allowed, and may even have been asked or encouraged, to say what they think.  Maybe that's just me, though, since I'm one that actively seeks critical feedback, not just looking for some fluffy criticism to accompany praise, but specifically looking for the negatives.  It bothers me when I try but can't find it.  (Do you hear that, local harmonica group guys?  =]  ).  My guess is that some of the others who have chimed in on the pro-Jonathan R. side of this argument are wired similarly.
 
I have a few short recordings of my open mic debut; even more of my practice sessions.  Maybe I should put those up somewhere and ask this list for critical feedback.  Maybe there are a few of you out there who are looking to take a few shots at me.  =P
Jonathan "kinda wobbly, ain't he" Compton
 
* Thumper rule: If you can't say nothin' nice, don't say nothin' at all.



> From: rlaughlin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: martinoldsberg@xxxxxxxxx; harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [Harp-L] Re: criticism> Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 12:30:52 -0700> CC: > > Well, Martin, as it turns out Elizabeth was making a criticism of Jonathan> Ross's post. If we are, as you say, "free to debate/criticize", then why is> Elizabeth's post exempt from this freedom? Should we prohibit her post, yet> not prohibit others?> > That's why I say,,"It's all good". What's good for the goose is good for the> gander, unless we're talking gender discrimination.> > I'm not defending Elizabeth in specific. Hell, I don't even agree with her> some of the time, and in this case, I don't even like the music she's> defending. But I'll fight like hell to defend her right to offer an opinion.> > BL[snipped...it's in the archives if you need it...]