Hi Keith, I toatly agree ALL ideas seem to fall on deaf ears even when they cost nothing to implement. OOh OOh deaf piano tuners? <g> Joe Goss RPT Mother Goose Tools imatunr@srvinet.com www.mothergoosetools.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Roberts" <kpiano@goldrush.com> To: "College and University Technicians" <caut@ptg.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:18 AM Subject: Re: [CAUT] Re: [PTG-L] Clarity needed? > I agree with you wholeheartedly Richard. I was told by an esteemed RPT that > no one knows what a RPT is. I find that true. Most of my clients think we > are all piano TUNERS. Marketing what we have and adding only one or two more > classifications that are also marketable would be the way to go, in my > opinion. > Why would I become a RPT if I have to market it myself? I can make up all > kinds of fancy sounding titles and no one is going to know the difference > except the guy across town who has the real one. If I have better marketing > I will run him out of business if there isn't enough for two. > > Keith Roberts > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Richard West" <rwest1@unl.edu> > To: "CAUT >> College and University Technicians" <caut@ptg.org> > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 7:15 AM > Subject: [CAUT] Re: [PTG-L] Clarity needed? > > > > I like your email, Jim. It helped clarify my thinking, anyway. Your > > three items are no longer at the top of my priority list for change. > > That's not to say that there isn't room for improvement. I have just > > come to accept certain things. > > > > 1. Testing - We have a workable test and a great crew administering it. > > Change will take place. The committee will hear suggestions and work > > with them to either accept and use them, or reject them as unworkable. I > > believe the testing system we have in place is working, at least well > > enough for me to be willing to let it be for awhile. > > > > 2. Associates - We have a category system that has remained unchanged > > for over 20 years. As far as I'm concerned it's a topic of discussion > > because of a few disgruntled members who can't leave it alone. I can > > understand the sentiment to some extent, but I see this as going against > > the inclusive spirit of PTG and the value that Associates bring to this > > organization. There has always existed a misdirected punitive > > inclination in PTG. Fortunately that has never been a dominant > > attitude. We would be better focused if we aimed at marketing the > > RPT rather than diminishing the Associate classification. I won't > > say any more about that because the discussion of Associates winds up in > > pointless debate over category options, most of which have been rejected > > in Council. This discussion is akin to debating how many angels will fit > > on the head of a pin. > > > > 3. Categories - I would like to see more internal categories, but I also > > think that our efforts should be more directed to marketing the RPT. And > > until that is done, multiple categories are of less importance. I agree > > with Israel that a plethora of categories will only confuse the public. > > Also defining the qualifications for other categories will take a lot > > of work. The rebuilder category, for example, has already been > > investigated and there have been a whole lot of problems defined. > > > > Therefore, my priority list starts with marketing RPT and spending > > some money to do that. Second on the list would be to expand our > > educational publications, top to bottom. Revise PACE, develop a > > piano service textbook, that is better than Reblitz, continue to > > refine the PACE checklist, etc., etc. I think PTG is in a good > > position to address both of these items. > > > > We had an informal moritorium on categories a few years ago. I would > > expand that moritorium to testing and Associate bashing. > > > > Richard West > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Jim Busby wrote: > > > > > List, > > > > > > You may choose to call the issues "problems" or, in my opinion, "ideas > > > to strengthen PTG", but here is a "nutshell" of the issues as I see > > > them; (If I missed something please let me know.) > > > > > > 1. Testing (CTEs, fees, reimbursements, etc.) > > > 2. Associates (Name use, advertising, progress in guild, etc.) > > > 3. Categories (Two, or more?) > > > > > > I don't want to sound too simplistic because I know each of these is a > > > whole can-o-worms, but can't we come together on the fact that each of > > > these issues should be addressed, separately? > > > > > > It seems that there are two definite camps; those who want change and > > > those who either don't, or are at least reluctant to effect change. > > > This > > > keeps an amount of "checks and balances" in place. It also seems > > > that we > > > get bogged down in these discussions because we throw everything in > > > the > > > pot together and this leads to endless 90 degree turns which lead us > > > nowhere. > > > > > > I, for one, could live with PTG as it is, but would REALLY like to > > > seem > > > more categories. Something to help the organizations to stretch out a > > > bit. > > > > > > Jim Busby BYU > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ptg-l list info: http://www.ptg.org/mailman/listinfo/ptg-l > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC