<HTML><HEAD> <META charset=US-ASCII http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; cha= rset=US-ASCII"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1505" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff= f"> <DIV> <DIV>Hi, Richard,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'll be as brief as I can, since the Cal State Convention is happening,= and I'm not done with the workday...  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am grateful that we can "let it loose" here on PTG-L, that's a lot of= the point of this list, we can go back and forth and we can pretty well ass= ume that contributor's intentions are good, or they wouldn't be here in the = first place.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For example, Israel and I will go back and forth with great vehemence, = but I have no doubt about his commitment to the good of PTG, and I think he = knows I want the best for the PTG too.  I consider him a friend, and if= he's at Burbank this weekend I hope to look him up.   I expect to=  see Carl Lieberman there, and anyone who reads this list knows we don'= t see eye to eye on everything <IMG src="http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/smi/0201= d20638/01">, but I consider Carl a friend, and an incredibly productive PTG = contributor.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When we talk about the Associate member situation, some of us might dec= ry it, but we're not "Associate" bashing.  The point of this list is to= permit free discussion of PTG issues, so I hope you can tolerate it, too.&n= bsp;  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I believe that this list's free-wheeling discussions benefit the PTG as= a whole.  At the very least, it functions as a "pressure-release valve= ."   But at its best, it helps to develop ideas which can truly mo= ve our organization forward.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Moratoriums just put off the inevitable.   They reduce proble= m-solving opportunities and suppress conflict-resolution skill-building.&nbs= p; They work for a few weeks, but I'm not sure they're good for the long-ter= m kind of break the PTG had a while back.   Considering the months= that this list can be inactive (self-regulating?), I think it's great that = we DO work hard, at times, on PTG issues.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Off to some learning, some fun, some re-connecting with friends (O= h...can't forget to harass my RVP some, right?  OK Richard&nb= sp; I'll be nice to Jim)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bill Shull  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In a message dated 2/8/2006 7:16:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, rwest1@un= l.edu writes:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue = 2px solid"><FONT face=Arial>X-INFO: INVALID TO LINE<BR>I like your email, = Jim.  It helped clarify my thinking, anyway.  Your<BR>three items = are no longer at the top of my priority list for change.<BR>That's not to sa= y that there isn't room for improvement.  I have just<BR>come to accept= certain things.<BR><BR>1. Testing - We have a workable test and a great cre= w administering it.<BR>Change will take place.  The committee will hear= suggestions and work<BR>with them to either accept and use them, or reject = them as unworkable. I<BR>believe the testing system we have in place is work= ing, at least well<BR>enough for me to be willing to let it be for awhile.<B= R><BR>2.  Associates - We have a category system that has remained unch= anged<BR>for over 20 years.  As far as I'm concerned it's a topic of di= scussion<BR>because of a few disgruntled members who can't leave it alone.&n= bsp; I can<BR>understand the sentiment to some extent, but I see this as goi= ng against<BR>the inclusive spirit of PTG and the value that Associates brin= g to this<BR>organization.  There has always existed a misdirected puni= tive<BR>inclination in PTG.  Fortunately that has never been a dominant= <BR>attitude.  We would be better focused if we aimed at marketing the<= BR>RPT rather than diminishing the Associate classification.  I won't<B= R>say any more about that because the discussion of Associates winds up in<B= R>pointless debate over category options, most of which have been rejected<B= R>in Council. This discussion is akin to debating how many angels will fit<B= R>on the head of a pin.<BR><BR>3. Categories - I would like to see more inte= rnal categories, but I also<BR>think that our efforts should be more directe= d to marketing the RPT. And<BR>until that is done, multiple categories are o= f less importance. I agree<BR>with Israel that a plethora of categories will= only confuse the public.<BR>  Also defining the qualifications for oth= er categories will take a lot<BR>of work.  The rebuilder category, for = example, has already been<BR>investigated and there have been a whole lot of= problems defined.<BR><BR>Therefore, my priority list starts with marketing = RPT and spending<BR>some money to do that.  Second on the list would be= to expand our<BR>educational publications, top to bottom.  Revise PACE= , develop a<BR>piano service textbook, that is better than Reblitz, continue= to<BR>refine the PACE checklist,  etc., etc.  I think PTG is in a= good<BR>position to address both of these items.<BR><BR>We had an informal = moritorium on categories a few years ago.  I would<BR>expand that morit= orium to testing and Associate bashing.<BR><BR>Richard West</FONT></BLOCKQUO= TE></DIV> <DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>