<html> <body> Ron, You make a number of good, if discrete points, each of which is deserving of greater consideration, however, the thread, thus far, has, for the most part, become sidetracked. The one I'd like to follow up on is the change in the nature of the list(s) and its impact.  It's poignant, in a way, that the perennial struggle to define the organization, it's objectives, and the relationship between the (basically) two types of membership - RPT's and Associates (and everyone else out there)  has now emerged as a question of how we are to interact with one another, as defined by the list protocols.  Would it be seriously proposed that such a discussion would be most appropriately venued (original verbification) at PTG-L,  where many of those affected are either unable to participate (non-members) or don't know that they can, or how (members)? Would this be deemed inappropriate discussion here (pianotech@ptg.org) because it's not 'about' pianos?  Would a similar such discussion be even more censured  on the PTG Pianotech list?   Is there something fundamentally different about this list, either in content or community, that is not replicated in the other forum, for all it's positive aspects and, depending upon one's point of view, for better or worse? In the time perhaps remaining, while this list still exists, where, and how can this issue receive a thorough, fair, less inflammatory hearing?  I don't have  the time right now, but the stats on number of contributors (vs. subscribers), ranges of frequency of posts from individual contributors, overlap of subscribers / contributors to old and new lists...are easily derived for both lists.  The final irony (for the moment) is that, for all the investment of energy in updating our communication technology, we seem to be having a harder time of it than ever. David Skolnik Hastings on Hudson, NY At 02:07 PM 10/26/2011, you wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Yup, it's me. I pulled myself out of lurking mode to respond to what I felt was an example of the reality of what lies just beneath the veneer of civility - that attitude of entitlement and elitism that kept me away from the PTG for years.  I finally joined because of this list - back when it was hosted by BYU - even before Andy Rudoff hosted.  The lure of an "open source" discussion; where learning and teaching was valued by many of the technicians I'd get a chance to meet. Associate and non-member bashing really doesn't reflect well on the brand of RPT.  I read almost everything on this list, but don't respond too much anymore.  It was instructive to go back into the archives to find out that this list began to be hosted by the PTG in the fall of 2002.  Even after the move the list claimed: (from the "more info on this list") The "pianotech" list, provided as a community service by the Piano Technicians Guild, is a forum for piano technicians. The list resides on the PTG server and is maintained by the PTG, but the PTG does not control the content in any way. The "pianotech" list is an open list, allowing anyone to subscribe or submit posts. Contrast that with the new list: (which runs too slow for me to use in a meaningful way) "This site is provided as a service for the members of The Piano Technicians Guild." Perhaps this could be a reason for the push to the new software?  I'm troubled by this shift, perhaps as much as I am troubled by my (and your) dues money now being used for radio ads in our local community that are at best a conflict of interest, and at worst a departure from the truth.  From what I understand, membership in the PTG accounts for about a third of the working technicians in the states. Of those members, about a half are RPTs.  I've got to wonder about my commitment of time and money to an organization that advertises against half of the membership... Ron Koval </blockquote></body> </html>