<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html>   kam544@flash.net wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>>...I choose then, to not get >all hung up in the preciseness of word usage because that... I ask you again, do you perchance read your own posts?</blockquote> Grin... well hey... nobody is poirfect.. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>>...Yet he was shot down... A correction in terminology was made by someone who felt it mattered.  Do not your posts reflect things that matter to you?</blockquote> Sure they do... but...see below <blockquote TYPE=CITE>>Like I said... I see the need for standardization, but understand >that beyond a limited scope in practice such standards dont and never will >exist. This is not to say that we should give up trying to achieve such >standards... >Richard Brekne Here's where your position becomes somewhat muddled.  You see the need for standardization, but then you take issue when someone attempts to inform another of such standards.</blockquote> If things are a bit muddled thats because that is the nature of language... which was the jist of my point. I did not take issue with a "correction" in term useage. I simply pointed out the factual  reality that Antares word usage was quite understandable and very commonplace indeed. And I pointed out that despite you, I, Mr. Mofait, and however many others aggree on the precise definition of these terms, we are in the minority in this world. Finally, having pointed out these two things I stated that it was important in the face of those two aforementioned facts that we strive also to use other language tools we have at our disposal in order to understand one another better, and not rely on an illusionary assumption that we all mean the same things by the same words. >Even if it it were true such standards never >will exist beyond a limited scope, what better place than Pianotech List to >be, at least, the limited scope.  If not us, who? Jimminees Keith... how many flames does it take for you to see that even "we" on the piano tech list are not in aggreement about these terms. Sure, there is a definition in the PTG books somewhere that we are all supposed to accept, but both you and I have read the back and forths on this one, as any such other issue. Of course such standards have only limited viability. Heck half the problems in this world are caused by people thinking they are in dissaggreement with each other when they are indeed not, just because they dont understand each others word usage. Lets not kid ourselves eh ? Setting standards, goals, and ideals is one thing, being aware of our human fraility is another, and attempting to take both into consideration a third... You accuse me of taking a stand I have not taken.... grin... or so it would seem. Perfect example of this whole point. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>  Keith McGavern Registered Piano Technician Oklahoma Chapter 731 Piano Technicians Guild USA</blockquote> -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. Bergen, Norway  </html>