Appt. Danger (partly off topic)

[Kevin E. Ramsey]

    Terry Farrell; et all.

    Just an interesting note: What is the definition of "lynching"?   It
literally means; "Removing people or persons from the custody of the
Police".  (For whatever reason). Ask me how I know that. (Remember, I live
in Arizona, and I'm technically a Reserve Sheriff.)  (In California, at
least.)


Kevin E. Ramsey
ramsey@extremezone.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Farrell" <mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 6:34 AM
Subject: Re: Appt. Danger (partly off topic)


> Comments below:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clyde Hollinger" <cedel@supernet.com>
> To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 7:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Appt. Danger (partly off topic)
>
>
> > Terry and all,
> >
> > Each of us looks at life through a collection of experiences we have
had,
> > combined with influences that have come our way.  When I was a boy my
> parents
> > never locked the house until they were robbed.  Only then did we start
> locking
> > the doors, the most obvious ones at least.  <G>  Same thing with my
first
> full
> > job at a feed mill.  We always left the truck keys stuck in the ignition
> all the
> > time (that's even illegal now, I think) until a robber rolled the
company
> safe
> > onto a truck to take it to a nearby woods to force it open.
>
> One could point out that this is what I was getting at. What gives you the
> right to enter someone's home uninvited? They did make an appointment, but
I
> think there is an inherent assumption that they will be home - unless
> otherwise stated. An appointment is an agreed time to meet and tune a
> piano - I do not believe it is safe to assume it is an invitation to enter
a
> home when no one home (unless that is explicitly agreed to). I think it
goes
> well beyond the matter of whether it is "OK", I believe it is a matter of
> respect for someone's privacy. If I ask my wife for her car keys, she may
> say "they are in my purse". I do not go through her purse, but rather give
> the purse to her and she will dig them out - again, simply a matter of
> respecting someone's privacy.
>
> > I live in an area where some clients will tell me where they've hidden
the
> key.
> > Some will leave the house unlocked for me, even if I won't arrive until
> the
> > afternoon.  Some will tell me not to lock the house when I'm finished
> because
> > the kids will soon be home from school.  A few offer the information
that
> they
> > never lock the house.  A few  will leave a blank check signed and lying
on
> the
> > piano.
>
> I have done all these things - and in a metropolitan area of Florida! But
> this is not what we had talked about. In all these cases, the home/piano
> owner is fully aware of what is going on, and has made all the decisions
> themselves. My objection is when the home owner is not aware that the
piano
> technician will be entering their home without their knowledge. Maybe the
> lady of the house, having forgot about the appointment, will have left her
> breast prosthesis or sex toy or personal photographs or cash or divorce
> papers out somewhere near the piano. These may well be things she/he
prefers
> not to share with the piano technician. These are examples of why I
believe
> one is violating another's privacy by going into a home without an
explicit
> invitation.
>
> > I have a section in my most recent newsletter entitled "What if I can't
be
> home
> > during the day when you want to come?"  The only comment I've received
> from that
> > was said in amusement that I mention I might use the bathroom or get a
> drink of
> > water.
> >
> > It is with a degree of sadness that I see the way society has changed
for
> the
> > worse in some ways, although some changes have been very positive and I
> applaud
> > them.  But why do we assume that those who still want to trust their
> neighbors
> > deserve to be ripped off for being so stupid?  I suspect that if I
> described
> > society as it used to be, many would totally disbelieve me.  Why do we
> assume
> > that there is no going back, that those who wish for a better way are
> ignorant
> > and out of touch with the times?
>
> Yeah, and lynchings were commonplace too.
>
> > I think I know, but no one seems to want to talk about it.  It involves
> societal
> > and personal philosophies and religious faith, and of course we "know"
> those
> > areas are taboo for public discussion, especially for those of us who
have
> a
> > conservative leaning.  We've committed ourselves to a philosophy that
will
> bring
> > us greater and greater problems, but it never occurs to us to take
another
> look
> > at where what we legislate is taking us.
>
> Hmmmm. And I have always thought that those of us with liberal leanings
best
> keep our mouth shut.
>
> > Regards,
> > Clyde
>
> We are getting into tender territory here Clyde - likely best to avoid.
But
> regarding the home-entry thing, I mean no animosity with my comments. I
> simply think that it is not proper to ever enter a home without the
> home-owner (or designated representative - like the maid) saying "please
> come in" (whether that is when you knock on the door, or when you make the
> appointment and they tell you that the key will be under the mat and to
just
> go in).
>
> Terry Farrell
>
> > Farrell wrote:
> >
> > > Hmmmm. Well, I see no one else has agreed with me. That hasn't changed
> my
> > > mind. I would never do it, nor would I appreciate anyone entering my
> home
> > > when I was not there - even if I forgot the appointment. I would
rather
> they
> > > leave a bill for the service charge.
> > >
> > > Obviously different folks have different outlooks on things. Boy, I
> always
> > > thought I was one of the most easy going folks around. Hmmmm. I'll
have
> to
> > > take another look at that! Just be careful. Good luck!  :-)
> >