<HTML>In a message dated 4/16/02 2:51:12 PM Central Daylight Time, piano@charlesneuman.net writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Is it true that a PTG member is prohibited from saying that "aural tuning" is better or worse than "electronic tuning"? I read this in the Potter course. It also says that a PTG member can only say something like, "_I_ tune better when I use an ETD", or "_I_ prefer to tune aurally." Is that information up to date? If so, what's the reason for that rule? Charles Neuman PTG Assoc, Long Island - Nassau </BLOCKQUOTE> Charles Basically, all RPT's are considered equal. No RPT is supposed to claim superiority over another RPT because the only requirement to become an RPT is to pass the 3 exams. The PTG does not make any distinction between someone who passed the exams at 100% or one who passed at 80%. (The same is true in the any other profession. A doctor passed his residency or not. The grades he/she got is not a matter of public record). By the same token, there is also no difference in our testing program between an aural tuner and a tuner who uses an ETD. Therefore, since there is no difference between the two methods, RPT's cannot advertise that one is superior to another. In other words, using an ETD does not guarantee a better tuning, and visa versa. It all depends on who is tuning the piano. And since RPT's are prohibited from advertising superiority, so are Associates. As far as saying, (or advertising) that "I tune better electronically," that could be interpreted as saying "I tune better because I tune electronically." And wouldn't that be the same as saying "I am better than someone who doesn't tune electronically"?  And that, I believe, would be against PTG policy. Just my opinion Wim </HTML>