Any way to saw or file the end, so there is enough room to push it through? Is there room for a Dremel? A hacksaw blade with just some tape wrapped around it for a hand hold, wouldn't take much room. John Ross Windsor, Nova Scotia On 2011-07-02, at 3:19 PM, Dale Probst wrote: > Hi Dale, > > Sorry, here's the deal: hitch pin next to treble strut broke flush with plate on second chip session. Drove the remnant through plate but there is insufficient clearance between the bottom of the plate and the top of the soundboard for the the remnant of the hitch pin to clear. I'd like to get that remnant out with out pulling the plate if possible- piano is strung and chipped. And ideas? > > DP > Dale Probst RPT > Registered Piano Technician > Ward & Probst, Inc. > www.wardprobst.com > dale at wardprobst.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Dale Erwin > Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 1:05 PM > To: pianotech at ptg.org > Subject: [pianotech] Dales hitch pin clearance > > > > Dale S. Erwin > www.Erwinspiano.com > 209-577-8397 > 209-985-0990 > Ronsen hammers/prep > Sitka Sound boards > Belly packages > > Poor decisions are rarely made right by a greater commitment to them. > "David Love" > > Hi Dale > DO you mean bridge pins to the underside e of the plate strut? Bold underlined is unclear > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dale Probst <dale at wardprobst.com> > To: pianotech at ptg.org > Sent: Sat, Jul 2, 2011 9:34 am > > > On a piano related subject- hitch pins from a 1911 O Steinway are drilled at angle but there is not enough room for the remnant to clear between the newly finished plate and soundboard. Don't ask me how I found this out, just tell me it will all work out..... > > Best, > Dale > Dale Probst RPT > Registered Piano Technician > Ward & Probst, Inc. > www.wardprobst.com > dale at wardprobst.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Encore Pianos > Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 10:55 AM > To: pianotech at ptg.org > Subject: Re: [pianotech] [OT] Stuff Which Should Really Be on PTG-L > > It’s great to continue the discussion in this spirit. I am finding out that we have more areas of common ground than I previously thought. And I understand what you are trying to say better because you have worked to clarify it. Thank you. I hope I have been able to do the same for you. Good communication is hard work sometimes, isn’t it? It is good to hear that several board members are open to going in another direction if HL finally proves to be inadequate. I know that part of my fear was that everything was a done deal and we were going to be stuck with something that does not serve us well and ultimately pulls us down. > > I think we are in agreement that we should move forward from the old list. If we can find the right program, I believe most people would migrate without too much complaining, and we could all move to better things. > > Tell me if you think this is reasonable: > > 1. Keep the old list going a bit longer in the near term just as we are doing now. > 2. Compile a comprehensive list of problems, bugs, complaints with the HL e-mail server (no doubt you are doing this already) and have our agent (Phil Bondi?) go at it with HL and establish where we are at now, what can be fixed and when, and where we are going to end up at the end of that. Report back to the committee. (It would be great if he has enough time to do this before council so that it could be part of the discussion). At which point, ask ourselves if that is enough, or do we need to explore other options to best serve PTG and the list. > 3. Concurrently, have some person(s) begin exploring other options for an e-mail server that we could agree would be better than the old list or HL. If HL proves to be more workable than it is now, then it would be academic. But we would have other things to compare it with, and if it proves that we need to move to something else, we have a head start and a better perspective. > > I understand the desirability of have an e-mail server that integrates with Member Max and why that should be part of the decision as to what to use. But is it a deal breaker if we can find a great e-mail server that does not integrate with Member Max? Particulary if our projections of the workability of HL are not encouraging? I hope that will not be the tipping point when making a choice between HL and something else. > > Fruit only, no cabbages? J > > Will > > > > > From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Dale Probst > Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 10:41 AM > To: pianotech at ptg.org > Subject: Re: [pianotech] [OT] Stuff Which Should Really Be on PTG-L > > Hi Will, > > One last clarification- I didn't say I " believe that the Higher Logic program is sufficient to meet our needs and encourage large participation by the membership". As far as I'm concerned that is yet to be proven. I am open to other programs and have been assured by several board members that if we can't get HL to work for us we will go another direction. I am on several woodworking forums: Woodnet, Sawmill Creek and BT3Central are the ones I monitor regularly. They mostly use VBulletin which is a pretty good package. But it doesn't do any of the other things that HL does by integrating with our Member Max database. It's an email handler and that's it. > As usual, when you really dig into issues, there is more to it than appears on the surface. When your issue is your only concern you are apt to miss parts of the larger picture and that applies to me also. What I've been trying to point out is that if you want more posts on this list serve, the best way I know to encourage that is to post piano related content and volunteer to do the work necessary to keep the creaky old Mailman software going. You do have the option of doing that on HL also which is something we didn't have before. You can do one or the other or both. I think that is a good thing but as I said before, I'm used to being in the minority. > > Thanks for the good luck and I only wish we could have a beverage together in KC, I'm better in person than on email....at least I think I am 8~} > > I'll be at the Pianotech Live meeting for any of you who wish to throw fruit, I prefer softer varieties. > > Dale > Dale Probst RPT > Registered Piano Technician > Ward & Probst, Inc. > www.wardprobst.com > dale at wardprobst.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Encore Pianos > Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 8:16 AM > To: pianotech at ptg.org > Subject: Re: [pianotech] [OT] Stuff Which Should Really Be on PTG-L > Hi Dale: > > Thanks for your further clarification about the purpose of ptg-l. I did misunderstand what you were trying to say in your earlier post. Patrick Draine was kind enough to contact me privately and correct my misunderstanding. > > I don’t want to keep making the same points over and over, nor do I think you do either. We both have pretty much presented our case. > > Given the content of the discussion we have had about the Higher Logic program I think it would be very timely and useful for Phil Bondi to write a post to both forums where he updates us on his interaction with the folks at HL, and progress on the problems with the program that so many have experienced. Regardless of where we sit on the issue, it would be to everyone’s benefit to know more about what is going on. > > I am all for having a better software system to manage the Pianotech Forum. Really. The old format is long in the tooth and has its own set of foibles, as we all know. Call me naïve, but I can’t help believe that there is something out there that is much better at doing this than the Higher Logic program. And affordable. No one would be happier than I to find a program that is better than the Higher Logic program and the old format, and that allows us to do more. Where you and I fundamentally disagree is that you believe that the Higher Logic program is sufficient to meet our needs and encourage large participation by the membership, and I say no on both accounts. > > Good luck with your class, and enjoy yourself in KC. > > Will > > From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Dale Probst > Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 8:16 AM > To: pianotech at ptg.org > Subject: Re: [pianotech] [OT] Stuff Which Should Really Be on PTG-L > > Hi Will, > > I'm going to try once more to explain. PTG-L is NOT limited to Council delegates it is open to every member of PTG. It was set up for discussion of membership issues such as dissatisfaction with Higher Logic, doubling dues, instructor reimbursement, what ever. I realize that there are non members and former members on the list and yes their concerns are important too. But the members will decide what happens with the organization because they pay the freight with their dues and volunteer contributions. > > Second point- technicians will go where the content is- period. I'll concede that they will can be dissuaded by the difficulties of using software. I'm no computer whiz but I have had very few problems accessing the discussions on Higher Logic. I do it from my home computer and it does what I need. Would I like to see improvements? You bet and I've submitted my punch list to my RVP and Phil Bondi. My point is very simple- if you want this list to continue you and all people who agree with you need to submit technical posts to list and volunteer to maintain it. We are using an old version of mailman and spam and virus protection is a real problem. It requires admins to go through the grey lists and forward posts that are held up by the anti spam/virus software we use. > > Third point- list access will change over time. As I said, I used to access it via a bulletin board, then in real time and finally through the archives. As a sitting officer on the Board, I was reading every list- PTG had 66 of them at the time. The volume of off topic and me too posts on pianotech made it impractical for me to continue in real time. If I had not adapted to a less than perfect method of reading pianotech I would have lost out on the discussion. So I adapted. > > Fourth, you can blame HL for the loss of community but HL did not change anything on this list. It only gave those of us who needed another way of participating an option. If you don't want to change over, don't. Sign up to maintain this list and send all the posts you want here. I'm good with that. Just don't blame the other site for reducing participation here. Nothing has changed here. > > I hope that explains my position adequately and apologize for my inability to communicate better. I'm trying to get a rebuild out before I leave for KC and have class presentations to polish. Not to mention that I'll be a delegate for my chapter. That's why I'm participating here but I still believe we should be on ptg-l where more delegates would see the discussion. > > Adios, > DP > Dale Probst RPT > Registered Piano Technician > Ward & Probst, Inc. > www.wardprobst.com > dale at wardprobst.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Encore Pianos > Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 5:45 AM > To: pianotech at ptg.org > Subject: Re: [pianotech] [OT] Stuff Which Should Really Be on PTG-L > Hi Dale: > > May I call you Dale? Please call me Will. > > I wasn’t making any statement comparing quantity and quality by sharing the statistics that I garnered from the archives. I didn’t have time to reread 5000 messages in the time period quoted and compile content lists piano and non-piano. Even surveying the subject titles and doing that would not be accurate, as we both know how the subject can change from one thing to another (both piano and non piano related), yet the title remains the same. That has been a problem of message discipline for years and will likely not change no matter what the format for e-mail server. > > But my point about the decline in participation still stands, I think. The reason for that is that the statistics I quoted reflect both Pianotech Lists, the old and the new. And the very significant drop coincides with the implementation of the new forum software. Further, the overwhelming number of comments by List participants in the last few days – where they are articulating their concerns and feelings – support the contention that decline in participation is in response to the inadequacies of the new system. > > I suggested moving it to ptg-l because that is what that list is for- discussion of PTG policies and procedures. That list is limited to members who will have opportunity to change things at Council. Discussing it here is contrary to the stated purpose of this list which should be about piano technology. > > On the one hand, I understand your point about topic segregation and what the various lists are for. In and of itself, that is not a bad thing and may be useful to help manage the list topics better. I am not unsympathetic to that aspect of it. But, like subject headings and message content, it is subject to the vagaries of member self-discipline as compliance is voluntary. Some will bother and some wont. That’s just the way it is. > > I find the second sentence quoted above telling. You want me to have this discussion on ptg-l. But ptg-l is limited to council delegates, as you state here. Since I am not a council delegate, I cannot have this discussion on ptg-l. But I cannot have it on Pianotech either, since that is for piano related topics only. The logic of your argument then, is that there is no forum for my voice. Nor, more tellingly, for the hundreds?of messages in the last few days, no voice either, since most of them are likely not council delegates. The net effect of our voluntary compliance with your dictum is that we should swallow our widespread dissent and shut up. > > I am troubled by some of your characterizations about what software is in vogue at the time, and people wanting to adapt. As if our complaints are based on mere personal preference and we are too lazy to adapt to new ways of doing things. When things change, we should make the effort to adapt. But I think you are barking up the wrong tree. > > The key here is that the Pianotech Forum is based entirely on voluntary participation and compliance. If you want us to do things in a certain way – meaning those of you who will effect changes related to this forum – then you have the task of persuading us to do things in a new way, since I do not believe you want the forum to be used by only 10 members instead of 1000. And certainly one of the strongest measures of success would be how widely the Pianotech Forum is used by members. That means that those encharged with the responsibilities of finding and implementing new software should be looking for something that the members will like and want to use. That’s not an easy task, as you are going to have to second guess what we will want to do. That said, some things will bring about a greater chance of success. > > The interface is where it all starts. Ideally, the software would be easy to use, consistent, reliable, and not buggy. Good interface design allows you to get from here to there in the fewest possible steps, when we are talking about the basic functions that all of us are going to do most of the time. There should be a consistent internal logic that makes usage seem easy and intuitive. The more you have to use Help to navigate a program, the less successful its design is. And the fewer your chances are for widespread adoption by a membership that will have to be persuaded that it is worth bothering. > > The Higher Logic program throws up roadblocks at the most basic levels of functionality. It’s a damn pain in the ass to use, it’s poorly designed, and has too many bugs – particularly for a program that should be mature and stable by now. And, acknowledge this or not, too many people have voted with their feet and ended or greatly reduced their participation in the forum. By that measure, it’s a failure. But don’t blame the victims. > > Yes, I am blaming the loss of community on the difficulty of using the Higher Logic Software. If I were only one voice, that would make my dissent insignificant. But, change a few details, so have said the vast majority of respondents in the last few days. We are merely reflecting a very real problem with bad software, and we are complaining because we want a great forum that we fear the new software in effect is taking away from us. > > Dale, I appreciate you taking the time to respond and hope this discussion can continue between you and I, and others as well. > > Most respectfully yours, > > Will > > > > From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Dale Probst > Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 9:40 PM > To: pianotech at ptg.org > Subject: Re: [pianotech] [OT] Stuff Which Should Really Be on PTG-L > > Hello Mr. Truitt, > > I think you are equating quantity with quality both in the statistics on number of posts and on the larger audience here on pianotech. I suggested moving it to ptg-l because that is what that list is for- discussion of PTG policies and procedures. That list is limited to members who will have opportunity to change things at Council. Discussing it here is contrary to the stated purpose of this list which should be about piano technology. You are free to disagree but if you want to implement changes in PTG, I suggest that you follow the policies and procedures that have been developed by the membership for implementing those changes. You may get a lot of "attaboy" and "me too" here but unless those folks follow up with their delegates to Council, this is as far as you will get. > > I know I'm in the minority here, it's fine, been there before. I' started on the list before it was even a list and was still on a bulletin board. I've seen a lot of people come and go. I've didn't post much when I was on the Board because I was reading the list from the archives and it was a pain. So, I know what it feels like to be shut out from the list by software I could not deal with. > > Pianotech as a community will exist no matter what the software is in vogue at the time. People will come and go, things will change and some won't bother to adapt. But if it's truly a valuable community, which I believe it is, it will prosper no matter what inconveniences pop up. If you want to keep this list stasis indefinitely all that is needed is a group of volunteers to deal with administrations issues and a request for action to the board. But be careful what you ask for, it's been relatively easy so far but then you would be getting into real work. Work that Andy Rudoff, Ron Berry, Phil Bondi, Kent Swafford, Dave Porritt, Brian Lawson, John Baird and others have done on their own time for years without complaining. > > You are putting the blame for the loss of community on the difficulty of using the Higher Logic software. Just consider for a moment that the blame may equally lie on the lack of substantial piano related topics on this list. People will go where the content is, that's human nature. There have been some decent discussions on the HL site and I hope to see more. And any of you can go there and review them whenever you want. Or you can stay here and do the work necessary to maintain this list. Or something else can happen. But this community won't die because of a software issue. It will only die if it becomes irrelevant to the people involved. > > Mr. Truitt, whether that happens would be up to you and the other members of this community, no one or thing else. > > Dale > PS- I didn't respond to your post earlier because I wanted to think about it before I replied, sorry it wasn't on your timetable. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20110702/23deaab4/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC