<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div><span>David I agree with you, Have been with program for years, Let the PTG Do there job, If dues is the problem for others, put up or shut up.</span></div><div><span>Lets get back to the program PIANOS. Over the years we have gained much knowledge which is worth more then the dues we pay. Please move on.</span></div><div>Don Lemoine Florida Chapter.</div> <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; "> <div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; "> <div dir="ltr"> <font size="2" face="Arial"> <hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> David Skolnik <davidskolnik@optonline.net><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> pianotech@ptg.org <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b>
Thursday, January 5, 2012 10:01 AM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [pianotech] mailman list<br> </font> </div> <br>
At 01:10 PM 1/4/2012, RonN wrote:<br> Should we collectively want to change<br>> the background color, we likely would have a choice of a half dozen or so<br>> options, but real function is apparently inaccessible. If this is NOT<br>> the case, perhaps we could hear the truth from someone for a change<br>> instead of the same tired stall with this into the future with<br>> diminished function nonsense, and the implication that you're either<br>> with us (carte blanche), or against us (ignore).<br><br><br>At this point in time, there is a significant danger that this list could become singularly focused on the issue of "the list", and thus, in striving to survive, lose it's very reason to do so. Ideally, we would have a separate (though inclusive) space to engage in conversations of this nature, but at this point, the simplest strategy, for those who can and chose to do so, is to create a separate folder or mailbox. But
I digress.<br><br>I quoted RonN above because, to me, at the moment, the most insidious aspect of this issue is the 'seeming' lack of engagement by the admittedly few people in a position to respond. I understand that JIm C, Jim M, Paul B and Phil B aren't sitting home/office waiting to reply to each and every complaint that is posted, but the, perhaps unintended, message that gets conveyed is one of indifference, which I know, in my heart, is not the case. I will grant that Phil would have to check himself in for an examination if he actually relished the vitriol that has been periodically directed his way (warranted though it might be), but, in the absence of any administrative input, it takes very little time for things to fester. It is, after all (as we've been reminded) the 21st Century. Reasonable or not, the expectations for the speed of communication are not what they were, even 10 or 20 years ago. Or probably even
1 month ago.<br><br>In addition to 'good people' working on the problem, there ought to be some evidence that there is at least one 'good person' whose responsibility resides in keeping the sheep fat n' happy, or at least not spooked.<br><br>David Skolnik<br>Hastings on Hudson, NY<br><br><br><br><br> </div> </div> </div></body></html>