kam544@flash.net wrote: > >...Surely you didnt mean to say "pet peeve"... that isnt really a very > >polite way > >of describing someones sincere opinions and thoughts on a matter... > > Yes, I did mean to say 'pet peeve', and I wasn't attempting to be polite or > impolite. Since I have been unable to distinguish your sincerity in this > matter, I posted what I did with full knowledge and no malice. If it got > your attention, than I did no less than how you managed to get mine. Well let me see then.... its ok for some people to employ such language tools to "get your attention" with no malice, and I or someone else are supposed to be able to just accept that... but when the tables are turned as they have been on a number of occasions for myself and some others, then suddenly this kind of thing is not ok. Despite that the fact that I load my posts with grins and smiles and a whole paragraphs on occasion decrying my respect for the individual I am addressing and the jovial nature of my intent. ....er.... ok.... > No offense meant now, Richard, prior or following. > > >...There was indeed an expressed difference of opinion > >with another list member I have personally a lot of respect for... but > >that was > >all. > > Thank you for this clarification. Er,.... your welcome... I would have thought an apology was in order her, you did after all directly accuse me of infering something about someone elses judgment, who I might add is a fine person who himself saw no need to react with other then a smile. As for the rest.... you snipped pretty selectivly so in attempt to get back to the jist of the subject matter that was my origional intent I'll just clarify on a blank sheet. My opening reply to Dons post was a misunderstanding of his objections to the fellow selling that Accu- Tune device. I and a couple others made this mistake. We took off on the line which in basis has to do with the very real problem of accepting money for unproffessional and incompent work and what is the best way of dealing with that problem. There are those who mean that any attempt to require any kind of certification requirements creates a worse problem, that of a certain number of these "certified" proffesionals misusing the trade protections such certification would create. This is a valid point. There are others, like myself, who take the standpoint that removal of any and / or all such requirements simply will exasperate that type of problem and indeed expand on its scope. Such a solution after my mind simply legitimizes those very same "certified" abusers, opens for even more such practice and removes any and all possiblities for accountability mechanisms. This is also a valid point. So we debate the pros and cons... As to the direction in the discussion relating to this "end result" concept. For my part I have been refering to the validity of the "end result" as it relates to any testing proceedure. I take it for granted that a customer out there paying good money has a perfect right to expect a satisfactory "end result". That however has nothing to do with the validity of this same "end result" in accertaining whether or not a technician knows both the practical and the theoretical knowledge required to tune a piano. The only way to argue against that fact is to point out that perhaps the theoretical is not so important, and that if you can use a tuning hammer in conjunction with an ETD then this should be enough. I do not aggree that this should be enough. So we debate the pros and cons. All the dissaggreement on this theme seems to me to stem from these above mentioned positions. I see no need to get all hot and bothered about any dissagreements relating to this, we are bound to have differeing viewpoints. I see no need to reduce a perfectly valid standpoint to being an "ego trip" or to attempt to place one or another person in an ethical quandry over the position he / she takes. I see no reason to personalize the disscussion whatsoever when it comes down to it. My response to Dons origional posting was deliberatly poking fun at a person I respect and who's nett companionship I enjoy and he, I am sure, is aware of that. The last thing I expected was for a person who has written me so extensively on the need to employ a "sixth sense" in order to maintain list harmony to send me a post with false accusations, "attention getting" language use, followed by a twisting and manipulation of my statements to move the discussion into an area I have never addressed and attaching then meanings to me that I do not stand for. For you to simply state that your particular reading of my statements are "self evident" .....welll.... I just dont know what to say Keith.. In all sincerety. -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. Bergen, Norway mailto:Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC