advice on action/hammers

Richard Brekne Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no
Wed, 01 Nov 2000 19:50:40 +0100


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment


kam544@flash.net wrote:

> >...I choose then, to not get
> >all hung up in the preciseness of word usage because that...
>
> I ask you again, do you perchance read your own posts?

Grin... well hey... nobody is poirfect..

> >...Yet he was shot down...
>
> A correction in terminology was made by someone who felt it mattered.  Do
> not your posts reflect things that matter to you?

Sure they do... but...see below

> >Like I said... I see the need for standardization, but understand
> >that beyond a limited scope in practice such standards dont and never will
> >exist. This is not to say that we should give up trying to achieve such
> >standards...
> >Richard Brekne
>
> Here's where your position becomes somewhat muddled.  You see the need for
> standardization, but then you take issue when someone attempts to inform
> another of such standards.

If things are a bit muddled thats because that is the nature of language...
which was the jist of my point. I did not take issue with a "correction" in term
useage. I simply pointed out the factual  reality that Antares word usage was
quite understandable and very commonplace indeed. And I pointed out that despite
you, I, Mr. Mofait, and however many others aggree on the precise definition of
these terms, we are in the minority in this world. Finally, having pointed out
these two things I stated that it was important in the face of those two
aforementioned facts that we strive also to use other language tools we have at
our disposal in order to understand one another better, and not rely on an
illusionary assumption that we all mean the same things by the same words.

>Even if it it were true such standards never
>will exist beyond a limited scope, what better place than Pianotech List to
>be, at least, the limited scope.  If not us, who?

Jimminees Keith... how many flames does it take for you to see that even "we" on
the piano tech list are not in aggreement about these terms. Sure, there is a
definition in the PTG books somewhere that we are all supposed to accept, but
both you and I have read the back and forths on this one, as any such other
issue. Of course such standards have only limited viability. Heck half the
problems in this world are caused by people thinking they are in dissaggreement
with each other when they are indeed not, just because they dont understand each
others word usage. Lets not kid ourselves eh ?

Setting standards, goals, and ideals is one thing, being aware of our human
fraility is another, and attempting to take both into consideration a third...

You accuse me of taking a stand I have not taken.... grin... or so it would
seem. Perfect example of this whole point.

>
> Keith McGavern
> Registered Piano Technician
> Oklahoma Chapter 731
> Piano Technicians Guild
> USA

--
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/7d/19/a5/65/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--




This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC