I think someone made a mistake. Chris Solliday ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barbara Richmond" <piano57@insightbb.com> To: "College and University Technicians" <caut@ptg.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [CAUT] Re: [PTG-L] Clarity needed? > Why is this on CAUT? > > Barbara Richmond > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Keith Roberts" <kpiano@goldrush.com> > To: "College and University Technicians" <caut@ptg.org> > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 10:18 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC