<font color='black' size='2' face='arial'>
<div>Captain Joe, to answer your questions (w/ your words in quotes):</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1) <EM>"you gave no answer to your initial, (subject), question. Was this the work of an RPT?"</EM></div>
<div>>>> Perhaps you missed my comment in the original message: "how can the PTG condone the RPT work shown in the attached photos?" Perhaps I was too subtle. Would you like the Customer's phone number to ask for details? Yes, it was the work of an RPT. Assuming everyone agrees, I'd be happy to facilitate your curiosity. This is not the only time I've seen something like this... so I was using the one really bad example to bring up the subject of minimal re-certification for RPTs. I consider taking any kind of very short test once in 10 years as very minimal. Maybe too much so, but it's a start... on the road to improved quality. Is the PTG interested in "Continuous Process Improvement"?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>2) <EM>"get your act together before casting dispersions at all of the RPTs in general!"</EM><br>
>>> Did I claim that ALL RPTs should be suspect? Help me find the wording, Joe. I have no doubt that RPTs who have passed the tests recently are fairly well qualified, even though (for example) the basis of a good Grand Regulation is key bedding but is not covered on any of the exams. I'd also ask you to note my comment: "Saying that the older tested Craftsmen or RPT's will retire" is the usual excuse from RPTs who know the early tests & RPT qualifications were not nearly as stringent as today's tests. Even Jim Coleman Sr writes in the Tuning Source book that the "new" tests (in the 80's) were designed such that 80% of the current RPT/Craftsman would be able to past the new test (read the Foreward). 80%. What about the remaining 20%? I think that means he expected the other 20% would either fail, or have to consciously work on their tunings (in this case) to pass the RPT test. I do not doubt a similar case exists for the Technical side as well.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>3) <EM>"Nor do I make public accusations w/o first going through the PTG process."</EM> I am NOT making a public accusation. If I would have named the person, that would in fact be making an accusation. Check the dictionary. I used the example to bring up the issue of improving quality by minimal re-certs. But I will take your suggestion and bring up the issue w/ our Chapter President.<br>
</div>
<div style="CLEAR: both">Bill,<br>
To start out, you gave no answer to your initial, (subject), question. Was<br>
this the work of an RPT? I have no clue, since you chose to RAG on and on<br>
and not give one shred of evidence that it, indeed, was the work of an RPT!<br>
I'd suggest you get your act together before casting dispersions at all of<br>
the RPTs in general! If this is a case of an RPT doing this sort of shoddy<br>
work, then you should first approach an officer of your Chapter and discuss<br>
it and come to a collective decision as to what course of action should be<br>
taken. Or...better yet, IF you know who the tech is, why not discuss the<br>
work with THAT tech! Or, are you simply not up to that task? I've been an<br>
RPT for over 35 years. I do not condone that kind of work. Nor do I make<br>
public accusations w/o first going through the PTG process. <br>
Joe<br>
Joe Garrett, R.P.T.</div>
</font>