<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>Israel:<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Here’s the problem I have with your post.  While I understand that the PTG does not exist for the list, the contributions of those on the list are not small and their generosity should be respected and appreciated in spite of the quirks of some of their communications styles and in spite of some of the useless, antagonistic  and redundant threads.  It’s part of what happens in dialogue.  Some of the posts themselves are used for PTJ sections and are an integral part of that publication.  But more than that the list represents an attitude that many technicians have of giving back.  While the list provides an opportunity for people to learn from others it only does so out of the generosity and willingness of technicians (around the world in this case) to share their thoughts and ideas, techniques, tools and tips.  It’s no small thing and the trade benefits enormously from that generosity.  To imply that it is mostly the list members who owe something to the PTG for providing them a “chatty” forum is to disrespect the efforts that they make to offer their collective wisdom.  It is as if to say, thank you for your generosity and now if you want to keep giving you will have to pay for your generosity.   How much more effort should I have to make to offer what I know out of nothing more than my own commitment to the betterment of the trade and to help others who are trying to learn.  Respectfully, I think you have it backwards.  The PTG operates primarily as a source of education and support for its members and a running dialogue in real time, an open forum, where ideas are easily posted and discussed and where the format lends itself to tangential discussions that often lead in unpredictable but productive directions  is a considerable part of that ongoing education.  It doesn’t exist as easily or in the same way outside of this format. Whether you personally consider the list a valuable form of the ongoing education cycle I don’t know.  But I do and so do a lot of others.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>With respect to Allen and those who made great efforts to bring this new site online, nobody is disparaging them and I for one am truly sorry if anything I said was taken that way by them or anyone else.    <o:p></o:p>Great efforts on a bad idea are still great efforts and can be applauded.  But they don’t make the idea any better.  And while we may very well disagree on the merits of the idea, I would hope that people (including those who made the great efforts) could keep those things separate.     <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><div>David Love<o:p></o:p>www.davidlovepianos.com<o:p></o:p></div></div></body></html>