aural/electronic tuning and PTG rules

[Richard Brekne]

Grin... well your quote (s) clarify the whole issue pretty well wouldnt you say
?? They illustrate precisely what the origional intent of the "rule" was and
why it is so absurd to attempt to regulate such matters.

Thanks for digging up the quotes Charles.....

RicB

Charles Neuman wrote:

> Richard Brekne <Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no> wrote:
> >
> > I cant imagine that the PTG can prohibit one from expressing ones opinion
> > about that or anything else.  What was the exact quote from Potter ?
>
> It sounds like this rule isn't on the books anymore, based on what people
> have said, but here's the direct quote (from Randy Potter's course,
> Chapter 1.9, page 21):
>
>   Members of PTG are prohibited from saying, either directly or by
>   implication, that either "aural tuning" or "electronic tuning" is
>   superior or inferior. We can say "I [italicized] tune better using a
>   (whatever) tuning device", but you are not supposed to imply that
>   this is better than another way.
>
> Here's the good part: He then he goes on to say,
>
>   However one thing is sure, in my opinion, tuning "strictly by machine"
>   is definitely inferior to tuning aurally...
>
> As for the rule, I understand the point of keeping people from creating
> their own levels of superiority, but I think that rule raised some freedom
> of speach issues.
>
> Now, as for what's next... Will someone be prohibited from saying, "WT is
> better than ET?" Sorry, I couldn't resist... :)
>
> Charles




--
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html