JIMRPT@AOL.COM wrote: > In a message dated 12/01/1999 3:03:50 AM, Richard B. wrote: > > <<this is the same thing > UL folks have to deal with..>> > > Richard; > No it ain't the same at all. > "Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) is an independent, not-for-profit > product safety testing and certification organization." Who says anything about making a buck ?? It need not cost anything either. Jim... there is always a solution, and a good one at that, if one first looks hard enough for it. > > > So other than the normal individual consumer role the employees of UL have > no stake in test results. We need have no other stake in the results then UL does, that of putting positive pressure on the market. If UL didnt have at least that stake, there would be absolutely no point to their activities. > > Whereas; > PTG is: "promote the highest professional, ethical, and economic standards > for its members"' It is no real stretch to include as relevant the present proposal. In fact it rhymes extremely well with these stated goals, unless one interprets them in a singularly self serving manner. How does influencing the market as directly as possible in as a positve but forcefull manner conflict with these goals ?? > > So PTG deals with people and not with product, and the product this thread > would have us "certify" or "approve" is the 'only' thing we are working with. > Not a basis for disinterested third party status I would say. Nor does there need to be prejudiced. This can be done Jim, thats not the question. The question is more whether or not there is the will to such a thing. I have absolutely no doubt that with the expertise and widsom found amoung our members and board such a will would result in a fair and effective proceedure for approval of instruments. There are several approaches that could be taken. Even a webside with reviews of different instruments from an unbiased criterera set would make waves. > > Hardly the same at all. Oh PTG 'could' issue stamps of approval, but by the > same token there is enough expertise in PTG where we 'could' build an > airplane, launch rockets, or even construct a nuclear device...does that mean > we should? And your point is ??? Airplanes and rockets are to be sure irrelevant, and the argumentation is too weak to avoid dying upon its own unreasonableness. Reviewing, rating, or somehow establishing approval criteria for the exact thing we live and work for is right up our alley. > > > <<"I suggest capitalism has not been effective in insuring that only decent > quality > instruments are produced.">> It was in response to another argumentation that simply stated that "good ol' capitalism" was doing a fine job in self regulating our industry. A remark that could be very successfully refuted given the economic facts. A particularily anarchistic-like faith in a totally unregulated market. Customers are actually at the mercy of the salesman and manufactureres and their marketing experts. Perhaps more then any other big ticket item. Its time there was a competent and ethics minded counter weight. > > I am not sure where this remark comes from. grin.. now you do... > > > Jim Bryant (FL) Richard Brekne I.C.P.T.G. N.P.T.F. Bergen, Norway
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC