Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    
    I guess my concern is how moderators determine when
    to use their power, so to speak, to withold discussion
    or communication between noters.
    
    Are you making legal decisions?
    Are you making moral decisions?
    
    How do you determine those...
    
    you know, that kind of stuff......
    
    	nothing serious.
    
    ron
    

With respect to note 2293 I have extracted it and asked personnel for a 
ruling on it's legality. If you read DREGS::MUSIC you have undoubtably
had the oppotrunity to read it since that Moderator has decided not to take 
any action concerning the matter.

If personnel so deems, I will unhide the note and probably participate (On 
DREGS::MUSIC)

dbii

    
    Thank you. In effect enough information to get an idea
    of what the 'issue' is.
    
    Unfortunately, this plays into my hand, which is the
    opinion (repeat: opinion) that something has been
    withheld by your personal judgement. On what basis?
    
    My question is thus:
    
    	What makes THIS notes moderator qualified to 
    	withhold communications between noters?
    
    	A position that "well, some OTHER notes moderator
    	didnt take a position on this" (not verbatim) really
    	does NOT support your censorship of legitimate notes
    	entry.
    
    This is perhaps (who knows?) a personel issue for DEC legal or personel,
    but I honestly dont understand your position on why this
    moderator is in effect deciding what notes we see or do not see.
    
    Exactly Who or WHAT do you think you are protecting here other
    than your personal power as moderator to censor certain entries?
    
    And WHAT or WHO gave you the right or responsibility to make those
    kind of decisions?
    
    Did you sign an agreement with DEC empowering you as such?
    
    Ron
    

    The moderator has to take responsiblity with what they feel is
    questionable material because they are accountable for all content.
    
    Its easy to sit back and complain about being censored, but when you get 
    complaints from people or personnel gives you or your CC manager a call 
    about content it's a different story. Its called CYA.
    

    
    (Believe me, this isnt personal. I know it's a tough
    job, and Im sure the moderator is giving it their best
    shot.)
    
    At least I havent been censored for in effect being
    able to present you with my main point:
    
    	One person is currently deciding exactly what
    	we can read and write. 
    
    I dont care HOW righteous or moral or impartial
    they are.........history has shown that this is
    and exceptionally bad situation.
    
    And, to make this situation even less defensable,
    the same note is accessable in another notesfile.  Clearly
    this ONE moderator is making censorship decisions.
    
    Is "the moderator is responsible for all content of notes
    in his/her file" stated in personel policy or any legal
    agreement signed by both parties?(DEC and moderator)
    
    The CYA argument is also NOT a valid for censorship.
    
    At least we can discuss this....see what I mean?
    
    ron
    

RE < Note 2294.5 by LEDDEV::ROSS "shiver me timbres...." >

	It is my understanding that the moderators are responsible for keeping
the notes files within corporate policy guidelines.  This note was questionable
in regards to the company's recently stated policy having to do with using
a corporate database for personal monetary gain.  

	Now, I didn't want to assume that my judgement alone was sufficient to
make a ruling, so I did what I have seen other moderators of this and other
conferences do - set the note hidden and seek expert advice.  Setting the note
hidden keeps the conference clear of providing further offense.  If the 
corporate "expert" comes back and says its o.k., the note will be set nohidden.
Otherwise, it will be deleted.

	There has been a lot of discussion lately as to the freedom we are
allowed in notes files, and it is my understanding that the conference 
moderators responsibility to keep the conference in line with corporate policy
(regardless of personal opinion).

	I am not in favor of cencorship, per se.  I do feel as though it is my
responsibility as a co-moderator to act within corporate guidelines.  I am
perfectly willing to admit that I may have acted overly cautious - that's why
I opened the judgement up to the other moderators.  If I'm found to have over-
reacted, the note will simply be opened up again and the only thing that will 
be lost will be a days discussion time.

	On the other hand, if I had let the note stay and found to have been in 
violation of corporate guidelines, the conference is in danger of being shut 
down.  I'd prefer to keep things as clean as possible, as I feel this conference
is far too valuable a resource to let it be closed.

	Perhaps Dave Blickstein can come in and add some wisdom here about the 
moderator's role.

	Dan Eaton (co-moderator)

    Ron,
    
    What you think is happening here is not.  You're way off.
    
>    Are you making legal decisions?
>    Are you making moral decisions?
    
    No.
    
>    	What makes THIS notes moderator qualified to 
>    	withhold communications between noters?
    
    There's a good answer for that.  And in addition to that one, there
    are other answers that don't apply that are equally good.
    
>    	A position that "well, some OTHER notes moderator
>    	didnt take a position on this" (not verbatim) really
>    	does NOT support your censorship of legitimate notes
>    	entry.
    
    Moderators are, in some instances, held accountable for what goes
    on in their conferences.  So one explanation for the difference in
    judgement is that one moderator sees a questionable note and out
    of concern for his responsibility takes more precaution than another.
    
    Ron, do you think this is an abuse of power?  Is it legitimate
    for Dave to say, "Well db maybe willing to take his chances on this
    but I'm not?".  Do you think my inaction obligates Dave in some way?
    
    As you see Ron, this is not a matter of "qualification" of "judgement".
    
>    The CYA argument is also NOT a valid for censorship.
    
    On what tenet/principle/whatever is this based?
    
    Ron, if being a moderator OBLIGATES you to expose yourself to risk,
    how many moderators do you think there'd be? 
    
    
>    This is perhaps (who knows?) a personel issue for DEC legal or personel,
>    but I honestly dont understand your position on why this
>    moderator is in effect deciding what notes we see or do not see.
    
>    Exactly Who or WHAT do you think you are protecting here other
>    than your personal power as moderator to censor certain entries?
    
    You have totally misconstrued the goal of the moderator.
    
    The goal of the moderator here is NOT to "control what you see" nor to
    "protect you from what you might see".  The  goal is to stop and see if
    this note violates a policy imposed on him which he is responsible for
    enforcing.
    
    If you have a beef, it's not with the moderator, and yet that is rather
    clearly who you are directing your discontent to.
    
>    	One person is currently deciding exactly what
>    	we can read and write. 
    
    This is NOT what is happening - not even remotely.
    
>    The CYA argument is also NOT a valid for censorship.
    
    Ron, this is a civil rights thing here.
    

	I just wanted to add that, of the four moderators, one has agreed with 
my action and has said that the note in question should be removed.  Another has
reserved comment until hearing from Personnel and the fourth has not yet 
answered (perhaps is not in today).

	Dan

    A couple of more things:
    
    Ron, the title of your note is "Would you let *ME* decide?".
    
    The answer to that is are you willing to assume the risk and
    responsibility for that decision?  Are you willing to risk YOUR
    job for the sake of allowing that discussion to continue?
    
    If so, I would not be surprised if the moderators would turn complete
    control of the conference over to you.  That way, we could go back
    to being able to complain about local stores and such.
    
    What is your answer Ron?
    
    ---------------------------------------
    
    One more point (sorry)
    
    People are under the false impression that NOTESfiles are a forum
    for free speech.
    
    Guys, I know this may seem astonishing, but that simply isn't true.
    
    DEC isn't obligated to provide the forum for anything you might choose
    to say.   Is it unreasonable, immoral or a suppression of your rights
    to say that DEC is allowed to forbid things in notesfiles which may
    interfere with company business?
    
    	db

    I support the moderators.  If someone wants to go to the trouble
    of hosting one of these for-laughs recreational conferences, I let them
    moderate it any way they want and thank them for hosting the
    conference. at all.
    Tom

Let's make it as clear as I can.

DEC owns the machine, the note in question proposed in essence forming a 
company. The Moderator who set the note hidden did so believe that the note
was in violation of corporate policy, specifically the policy regarding the 
appropriate use of the computer system. The Moderators and after them the
system managers of all systems are chartered by definition to be responsible
to stay within the guidelines of the policies that effect the operation of
their systems.

I took the note to personnel for a ruling, I have not yet heard back from 
them. My boss (also listed as a moderator but non-participating) told me to
delete the note after reviewing it. I interceeded preferring to wait for
an official rendering of policy in this matter. If personnel nixes the note
I will then remove it and notify the author as to my action and the reasons
why we felt it necessary to do so.

I am the system manager of this cluster. I am a moderator. I am responsisble
and I have the power and the right. This is not a civil rights issue, this
does not infringe on your right to communciate with each other. This is a
private system on a private network where you have only those rights that
the owner of the systems decides to give you. 

Being a moderator isn't easy. I try very hard to be non-intrusive. FWIW

If you dislike my or my co-moderator's actions I suggest that you first review
the policies regarding the use of DEC assets, and if you still disagree, I 
guess you'll just have to lump it (if you disagree with the final ruling from
Augusta personnel). Or you could work the issue when a decision has been handed
down. I'd be glad to put you in touch with the person who is doing the research
in our personnel group. Since, as yet, nothing has been decided, I think you're
overreacting. Personal opinion, mind you...

You do not have to refer to me as god however....:-)

dbii

    I hope this doesn't sound like "piling on", but I want to LOUDLY
    support the last couple noters.  In reading the "We want our rights"
    notes in this and other notesfiles, I think we all sometimes forget
    that this is not a newspaper or a television station.  Although
    some may dispute it, DEC is in the business of manufacturing and
    (hopefully) selling computers.  The fact that they ALLOW people
    like you and I to share information and experiences about our interests
    is great.  But we sometimes forget that they don't HAVE to allow
    us to do this.
    
    I support Dan and the other moderators who I think do a good job
    of keeping this stampede out of trouble.  It really must be a thankless
    job if when they try to err on the side of caution, they get blasted
    for "censorship".  
    
    Clusters,
    Bill (just don't delete this one) Allen
    

It isn't censorship in my book.  As dbII said, this is private stuff.  When you
play football, you play by the owner's rules, because it's his football, 
so to speak.  Well, DEC (and more or less as agents of DEC the system folks 
and the moderators) own this football (DNEAST/EasyNet).

Chad

	So someone wonders if they can start their own Recording
	Company. Why not, as moderator, reply stating that the note
	is potentially conflict of interest, and/or not appropriate
	use of Notesfile? 

	Isnt THAT the more responsible action of a moderator,
	WITHOUT censoring the IDEA?

	"Moderators MUST hide controversial notes until Corporate
	 decides if we can talk about that subject".

	This is your justification? That's what I keep reading.

	Dont you see the difference????????

	WHO is to decide what information can be discussed?

	"Moderators MUST hide controversial notes until Corporate
	 decides if we can talk about that subject".

	Will you decide to hide *this* note and keep it from
	my fellow employees because it discusses corporate
	policy (or lack of clear guidelines in certain forums)?

	What you say ISNT happenning, IS happenning. You are playing
	the middle man in a censorship game. You personally are deciding
	what ideas or subjects to withhold until someone else decides
	if we can discuss it.  Bad situation, but I guess you dont see it.
    

    For the record, I support the action that's been taken and would have
    done the same thing myself had I read the note before Dan.
    
    NO action (except for moving notes, and setting questionable ones
    hidden) is taken by the moderators of COMMUSIC without consulting 
    with the others.
    
    Edd, Co-mod 

    
    I must admit that 2294.11 is very well written
    and a clear statement of position and rationale
    concerning the issue.
    
    If the policies were clear, of course, then the
    action in MUSIC notes would have been the same.
    
    But it wasnt.
    
    Hey, were they shut down yet?
    
    Well, maybe we'll get to discuss it when personel decides
    if we can.......
    
    ron
    

>	WHO is to decide what information can be discussed?

	Obviously, the owners of the systems.  We, as moderators, are acting as 
their representatives.  In effect what we are doing is asking them to make a 
judgement on something we believe is against their previously stated policies.

>	So someone wonders if they can start their own Recording
>	Company. Why not, as moderator, reply stating that the note
>	is potentially conflict of interest, and/or not appropriate
>	use of Notesfile? 

	Perhaps that would have been the better approach.  But I would rather
err on the side of caution than risk losing the company benefit (COMMUSIC 
Conference).  Wouldn't you? (Well, judging from your response, probably not).

>	Will you decide to hide *this* note and keep it from
>	my fellow employees because it discusses corporate
>	policy (or lack of clear guidelines in certain forums)?

	Forgive me for saying this, but this statement seems like you're just 
out to pick a fight.  Obviously, discussions on corporate policy are not against
corporate policy.

	Dan

    
    
    
    
                    WELL SLAP ME UPSIDE THE HEAD...
    
    
     
                           For a minute I forgot what conference this
                    was.
    
    
    
    
                    What it comes down to is a conflict of interest.
    
                    Would the shareholders be impressed if they felt
                 the Corporation was spending money (your wages) and
                 resources (network) for something that,in all probability
                 will not increase the net worth of thier holdings??
    
    
                    You better be careful, or I'll pull the plug.
    
    
                    Conferences can be exterminated  much more quickly
                 than they are created.
    
                      
                                      later gator'

    
    		
    			You're ABSOLUTELY right!
    
    	

    > If the policies were clear, of course, then the
    > action in MUSIC notes would have been the same.
    
    Actually, the difference in procedure here reflects ONLY my
    predisposition towards inaction these days.  The policy is rather
    clear.
    
    My inaction can be attributed directly to being tired of being
    beat up (such as in this note) so many times for merely trying to 
    keep within DEC policies, the intent being not so much as to enforce
    DEC policy as to maintain the "low profile" of non-work related
    notesfiles so as to not cause problems with the company that might
    lead to the elimination of non-work related notes.
    
    In fact, I'm so tired of it, and unhappy with the "Sgt
    Pepper/rule-monger" image that goes with it, that I am planning to find
    a new moderator for MUSIC.
    
    Ron, you're a friend.  And I respect your right to discuss/criticize
    the policy, but frankly implying that the moderators have been
    "corrupted by power" really strikes me as being over the line
    and personally insulting.  C'mon, let's just all chill out a bit.
    
    	db

        ok, i support all you moderators - you'all been doin' a real fine
        job and all.  I've been caught working and did not see this note
        show up in either Music or here - just the shut down notes, and
        ron's complaint.
        
        However, my curiosity is piqued - could one of you, (Dan, DbII or
        db) provide a little insight as to exactly how policy was violated
        (keeping in mind I did not see the note). Ron's comment about
        someone wondering about starting a recording studio sounds harmless
        enough - where did this fellow cross the line? Is it possible
        without to illuminate me without risk?
        
        Oh, and Dave Blickstein - i tuned in too late in music to read
        exactly what was said to tick you off, but sadly, looking at the
        sources of those hidden replies, i can make a good guess. Don't
        let 'em rattle ya - i believe you have set the standard on with
        to measure all others when it comes to moderating these conferences.
        Consider the self protraits these folks continue to thrust in our
        faces, and feel proud and content of how you conduct yourself.
        
                bob
                

    RE:  .12
    
    >DEC is in the business of manufacturing and (hopefully) selling 
     computers.  
    
    I thought we were now in the business of integrating enterprises!  :-)
    (I'm corrected ... ALL THREE!)

---
    
    Anyway, thought I'd lighten this topic, which seems very heavy to me.  
    I must add my vote that I heartily agree and respect the decisions of
    our moderators and co-moderators, and have found this notesfile to be
    one of the best-moderated ones in all of VAXnotes!!!
    
    Try to find another notesfile with as much fairness, structure,
    keywords, reserved notes, etc., as well as useful information.  You 
    will find this is one of the best.
    
    Keep up the good work, (co)moderators.  Full speed ahead!
    
    K.R.

    The following is the contents of the mail I received from personnel. I
    haev deleted the note and notified the author. It is with a certain
    amount of reluctance that I do so as I had actually been quite
    sympathetic with the author's goals, however; the policies seem to
    clearly indicate to me that this has to be the action we take. 
    
    
    dbii
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
Dave,
     Gene asked me to check into your question: Does this violate company
policy?

Yes it is in violation of Personnel Policy 6.54 -- PROPER USE OF DIGITAL
COMPUTERS, SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS--WORLDWIDE

I have taken direct quotes out of the policy that apply to this situation.
I encourage you and others who have questions about this policy to review the
entire policy.  

PHILOSOPHY  (page 1, paragraph #3)

     "The protection and appropriate use of these assets is everyone's 
      responsibility.  We must strike a balance between encouraging open systems
      and protecting these assets if they are to continue to support our 
      success."

POLICY  (Page 2, par # 2)
     
     "...it is therefore the responsibility of all employees to use the computer
      resources provided to them by the Company appropriately."

DEFINITATIONS  (page 2, par #1)

     "...improper use includes, but is not limited to the use of Digital owned 
      and operated systems, networks and conferences ...for personal
      purposes that are contrary to Company philosophy or policy, ... or for
      purposes of individual financial gain.  Examples of misuse include, but
      are not limited to, ... soliciting other employees...."

RESPONSIBILITIES  (page 3, par #4)

     "CONFERENCE MODERATORS - Conference (Notesfile) moderators are expected
      to periodically review the contents of the conference they moderate to 
      insure that material contained in those files meet the letter and spirit
      of this policy.  Moderatos are expected to remove any material that does
      not comply with these standards, and should report violations of this 
      policy to the appropriate systems or cost center manager."

NOTES FILES/CONFERENCES  (page 3, par #2)

     "Conferences created to communicate matters of opinion and common interest
      may not be used for solicitation of any kind, and must be open to all
      employees."

     "In addition, these conferences may not be used to promote behavior which 
      is contrary to the Company's values or policy.... It is the responsibil-
      ity of employees who utilize such notes files to do so in a manner
      consistant with both the letter and spirit of this policy and the 
      Company's values.  The company reserves the right to terminate any 
      notesfile it believes is inappropriate or in violation of this policy."


One other Digital Policy that also applies:

6.06 CONFLICT OF INTEREST

II. EMPLOYEES DOING OUTSIDE CONSULTING OR ENGAGING IN OUTSIDE BUSINESS 
    ACTIVITIES  (page 3, par #1,A,B)

     "An employee is allowed to do outside consulting or to engage in outside
      business activities provided the employee meets all of the following
      criteria:

      A.  The consulting or outside business activity, including preparation,
          is not on Company time nor does the consulting or outside business 
          activity in any way impact the employee's job performance at Digital.

      B.  The consulting or outside business activity does not in any way
          utilize any Digital resources:  e.g., facilities, materials, 
          equipment, telephones, trade secrets, Company propriety or 
          confidential information, etc. 

Dave, I hope that this is helpful.  Call me if you have any other questions?

 










    

    Hi everyone.  I wrote the original note.  I had no intention of
    getting into trouble or letting other people get into trouble on
    my behalf.  I had a thought and I expressed it.  The thought being
    that we seem to have so many people with musical talent and passion
    and that it would be nice to be able to share it amongst ourselves
    and anyone else that might be interestd.  
          I did not suggest that we all get together and make ourselves
    RICH.   Please, no one should get into trouble for this at all.
    I see the moderators point and share his concern  He did the right
    thing considering the situation.  Now is there anyway we can carry
    on this discussion without violating DEC rules?   
          I do not want us all getting into trouble for something that
    might never be but I'm an optimist and I believe that anything and
    everything is possible.
          Chill out guys and give the moderator a big cheer for carring
    about us noters (and himself ofcourse) and wanting to keep this
    forum for MUSICALLY MAD species!!!
     
    PEACE
    KF

    The way to continue talking about this is the way we have continued
    talking about a lot of similar things - come to a LERDS-BIM.
    
    NOTE - this is not a solicitation.  I derive no personal gain from
    LERDS-BIMs (well, other than the satisfaction of spending time with
    friends).
    
    len.
    

	Those of you that know me were probably going "what's
	happenned to Mr. Normally-easygoing-laid-back Ron???".
	It's still me.   My 'debate' around this subject had a
	coupla goals:

	To understand if company policy CLEARLY states what action(s)
	should be taken (Dont forget: the MUSIC NOTES response was
	entirely different than ours on the same note).

	To understand if the policy clearly defines "violation"
	IN THE NOTES MEDIUM, or is open to varied interpretation.

	I'm satisfied.  In fact, if I didnt know better, I'd speculate
	that our moderators just might have been 'set up' to
	demonstrate that Commusic's doin' an excellent job...   ;}
    

    How do I get into LERDS_BIMs
    KF

    
    Send $500 non-refundable entrance fee to:
    
    		Ron Ross
    		1028 Hill............oops.
    
    This fine not-for-profit educational collective of
    concerned individuals holds wednesday AFTER WORK 
    meetings weekly, or thereabouts, at Tom Fooleries in Westboro......
    
    I believe theres a note SOMEWHERE in here about it.....
    
    edd?
    

RE < Note 2294.26 by LEDDEV::ROSS "shiver me timbres...." >

	I'm glad you entered that last explanation, Ron.  It helps to know 
where you're coming from.  The only question I have left is - why did you
approach the subject in such a confrontational fashion?  Why couldn't you
simply seek out that information without implying the corruption of those
responsible for the action in question?  This could have all been a lot
more pleasant for all of us if you had approached in a manner that was more
characteristic of you (as you stated, Mr. Normally-easygoing-laid-back).

	Oh, and I know Brad would appreciate me saying this...  There is a note
for voicing gripes in the low numbers of this conference.

	Dan

    > To understand if company policy CLEARLY states what action(s)
    > should be taken (Dont forget: the MUSIC NOTES response was
    > entirely different than ours on the same note).
       
    Ron,
    
    I have to ask you to stop referring to what happened in the MUSIC
    conference.  If you've been reading it lately, you'd know why I
    didn't do the same thing in the MUSIC conference.
    
    That reason being because everytime you delete a note like that,
    you get people painting this image of you as a rule-monger,
    "corrupted by power", etc. etc. even though it's something you
    HAVE to do because the corporation holds you responsible.  People
    (understandbly and expectably) don't even attempt to understand 
    what moderators HAVE to do and why.
    
    I got tired of that and whereas I should've deleted it immediately,
    my reaction was (pardon my language) "oh fuck it, I'm tired of
    this shit - I don't want to play the Officer Krupke role anymore".
    
    So what you see is that the difference between what happened in MUSIC
    and COMMUSIC is not due to a lack of clarity in the policy.  Ironically
    it's entirely due to notes like the ones we've seen in this topic.
    
    	db

    Since I know most of the interested parties here (apart from Mr.
    Foster), I took the thing at face value, and figured wockin won was up
    to his wascaly twicks again. 

    FYI - we, as moderators,  are just trying to make life easy for
    everyone.  Moving and deleting topics is work, and not what I would
    call "pleasant".  Assigning keywords (on which I am hopelessly behind)
    is a real pain, but it *help users*. Write-locking topics is similarly
    unpleasant, as is appearing to be heavy-handed.  But isn't it better to
    take flack than to risk losing the conference?  I think so. 

    Incidentally, I have found that the people who do the most screaming
    are the ones who *NEVER* bother to read per-conference "required
    reading" topics, much less P&P or the ETIQUETTE conference.

    My response is simple: if you don't like the way we moderate, then
    don't participate.  None of us have power fetishes, and none of the
    moderators has ever been known to say "gee - this is really *stupid; I
    think I'll do it!".  If you are going to continue to participate,
    please be advised that we're doing the best job we can - and in the
    meantime, shut up and note (or as Karl so aptly put it a few mos. ago,
    "go pound sand"). 

    Nothing personal here guys, and no hard feelings.  Mr. Foster didn't
    intend to start a war, so I don't blame him; Dan and Dave didn't intend
    to start a war either. 

    I think this bunch is probably one of the best group of folks I've ever
    had the pleasure of meeting/working with.  Let's keep it friendly, eh? 

-b

PS: Blickstein, I wouldn't want to moderate MUSIC for all the beans in the
    bushes.  I don't blame you for your attitude (although I would have
    stated it a bit differently 8-). 

    
    Dan: In retrospec, I'd definitely change this note 'title'.
    	 I'll admit taking the 'squeeky wheel' approach, maybe a 
    	 bit too far...I hear you......it ruffled feathers, if not
    	 alienated friends, and Im not sure it was worth it.
    	 ALL the moderators responded without flying off the handle,
    	 however, and I think that's an important point.
    
     Dave: Any reference to MUSIC was not a directed comment on anyone's
    	   particular right/wrong actions.  The whole situation DID
           however trigger FOR ME the "wait a minute, if its clear
           cut...why the difference?" problem.
    
     Sorry guys, but honestly, I didnt know that gripes/complaints/etc.
     were happenning that often. I'd be sensitive to any note that sounded
     like one too if I were moderator...I guess Ive learned alot here. 
    
     Errrr, beverages to all involved at next LERDS BIM...on me...
    
     non_grata_ronaldi

    > next LERDS-BIM... on me.
    
    
    I'LL BE THERE!!!
    
    /edd

    I'm impressed.

    
    ...and THAT'S the variable the Big Bang Theory fails to take into
    account...
    
    		
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    				^    ^
     				*    *
            			   >
    
    				\____/
    
    
    

    WOW!
    
    You people are a really intense bunch, eh?
    Everyone count slowly to 10...breathe deeply...relax......
    feel better? Good!
    
    Seriously, I like this conference and have learned an awful lot
    from the people who write here.  I also think the moderators do
    a good job.
    
    Be calm!
    
    chris (who usually just lurks for fear of showing his ignorance 
           about electronic music)