Pianotech

David, it is quite likely the post(s) Steve Rosenthal is responding was in one of the threads that have been flagged as inappropriate, and currently removed from general viewing. If the Communications Task Group concludes they are acceptable, the threads might be put back up. 
So it's best that he doesn't repost the conversations.

David, it is quite likely the post(s) Steve Rosenthal is responding was in one of the threads that have been flagged as inappropriate, and currently removed from general viewing. If the Communications Task Group concludes they are acceptable, the threads might be put back up. 
So it's best that he doesn't repost the conversations.

I think that Mr. Norsworthy is being WAY over sensitive. I also think that PTG is being WAY too compliant and that it should take more than a single person complaining to warrant the removal of an entire discussion. Additionally, as is the PTG way, an entire discussion was removed without any of the participants being notified as to why, nor as to what they may have contributed to the discussion to help cause the removal. I have always believed that PTG is, among other things, here to educate. If we do something wrong, let us know what we did wrong so that we can better comply with the rules. Otherwise none of us learn and will likely break those rules again. 

I believe this forum should be treated as, more or less, public. And, like TV, if you don't like or approve of a given conversation there are always other conversations that you can participate in. Don't kill an entire conversation, involving multiple participants, because someone, as a single entity, may be offended. Just change the channel. 

David, it is quite likely the post(s) Steve Rosenthal is responding was in one of the threads that have been flagged as inappropriate, and currently removed from general viewing. If the Communications Task Group concludes they are acceptable, the threads might be put back up. 
So it's best that he doesn't repost the conversations.

Geoff, don't assume the PTG has taken action. When a forum member flags a post as inappropriate, it is automatically taken down pending adjudication. 

I think that Mr. Norsworthy is being WAY over sensitive. I also think that PTG is being WAY too compliant and that it should take more than a single person complaining to warrant the removal of an entire discussion. Additionally, as is the PTG way, an entire discussion was removed without any of the participants being notified as to why, nor as to what they may have contributed to the discussion to help cause the removal. I have always believed that PTG is, among other things, here to educate. If we do something wrong, let us know what we did wrong so that we can better comply with the rules. Otherwise none of us learn and will likely break those rules again. 

I believe this forum should be treated as, more or less, public. And, like TV, if you don't like or approve of a given conversation there are always other conversations that you can participate in. Don't kill an entire conversation, involving multiple participants, because someone, as a single entity, may be offended. Just change the channel. 

David, it is quite likely the post(s) Steve Rosenthal is responding was in one of the threads that have been flagged as inappropriate, and currently removed from general viewing. If the Communications Task Group concludes they are acceptable, the threads might be put back up. 
So it's best that he doesn't repost the conversations.

Floyd --

The PTG set up the system so that when a post gets flagged, even by just a single user, the entire thread gets taken down. Whether automatic or not, PTG has, therefore, taken action. It might be just a little more democratic if when a user flags a post it first gets reviewed and only if found offensive, or whatever, then gets taken down, with explanation so that we can learn from the situation. The system, as is, is treating us, as a group, as guilty before reviewing the evidence. 

Geoff, don't assume the PTG has taken action. When a forum member flags a post as inappropriate, it is automatically taken down pending adjudication. 

I think that Mr. Norsworthy is being WAY over sensitive. I also think that PTG is being WAY too compliant and that it should take more than a single person complaining to warrant the removal of an entire discussion. Additionally, as is the PTG way, an entire discussion was removed without any of the participants being notified as to why, nor as to what they may have contributed to the discussion to help cause the removal. I have always believed that PTG is, among other things, here to educate. If we do something wrong, let us know what we did wrong so that we can better comply with the rules. Otherwise none of us learn and will likely break those rules again. 

I believe this forum should be treated as, more or less, public. And, like TV, if you don't like or approve of a given conversation there are always other conversations that you can participate in. Don't kill an entire conversation, involving multiple participants, because someone, as a single entity, may be offended. Just change the channel. 

David, it is quite likely the post(s) Steve Rosenthal is responding was in one of the threads that have been flagged as inappropriate, and currently removed from general viewing. If the Communications Task Group concludes they are acceptable, the threads might be put back up. 
So it's best that he doesn't repost the conversations.

I think that Mr. Norsworthy is being WAY over sensitive. I also think that PTG is being WAY too compliant and that it should take more than a single person complaining to warrant the removal of an entire discussion. Additionally, as is the PTG way, an entire discussion was removed without any of the participants being notified as to why, nor as to what they may have contributed to the discussion to help cause the removal. I have always believed that PTG is, among other things, here to educate. If we do something wrong, let us know what we did wrong so that we can better comply with the rules. Otherwise none of us learn and will likely break those rules again. 

I believe this forum should be treated as, more or less, public. And, like TV, if you don't like or approve of a given conversation there are always other conversations that you can participate in. Don't kill an entire conversation, involving multiple participants, because someone, as a single entity, may be offended. Just change the channel. 

David, it is quite likely the post(s) Steve Rosenthal is responding was in one of the threads that have been flagged as inappropriate, and currently removed from general viewing. If the Communications Task Group concludes they are acceptable, the threads might be put back up. 
So it's best that he doesn't repost the conversations.

I think that Mr. Norsworthy is being WAY over sensitive. I also think that PTG is being WAY too compliant and that it should take more than a single person complaining to warrant the removal of an entire discussion. Additionally, as is the PTG way, an entire discussion was removed without any of the participants being notified as to why, nor as to what they may have contributed to the discussion to help cause the removal. I have always believed that PTG is, among other things, here to educate. If we do something wrong, let us know what we did wrong so that we can better comply with the rules. Otherwise none of us learn and will likely break those rules again. 

I believe this forum should be treated as, more or less, public. And, like TV, if you don't like or approve of a given conversation there are always other conversations that you can participate in. Don't kill an entire conversation, involving multiple participants, because someone, as a single entity, may be offended. Just change the channel. 

David, it is quite likely the post(s) Steve Rosenthal is responding was in one of the threads that have been flagged as inappropriate, and currently removed from general viewing. If the Communications Task Group concludes they are acceptable, the threads might be put back up. 
So it's best that he doesn't repost the conversations.

I currently work for a Korean family-owned business and I mentioned the "offending story" to a co-worker who found it unoffensive and the situation laughable.

My wife discussed this issue at her work with Korean, Chinese, Japanese and American co-workers who also found this story rediculous.

I suggest we move on as this is evolving into unnecessary over-sensitivity.

I think that Mr. Norsworthy is being WAY over sensitive. I also think that PTG is being WAY too compliant and that it should take more than a single person complaining to warrant the removal of an entire discussion. Additionally, as is the PTG way, an entire discussion was removed without any of the participants being notified as to why, nor as to what they may have contributed to the discussion to help cause the removal. I have always believed that PTG is, among other things, here to educate. If we do something wrong, let us know what we did wrong so that we can better comply with the rules. Otherwise none of us learn and will likely break those rules again. 

I believe this forum should be treated as, more or less, public. And, like TV, if you don't like or approve of a given conversation there are always other conversations that you can participate in. Don't kill an entire conversation, involving multiple participants, because someone, as a single entity, may be offended. Just change the channel. 

David, it is quite likely the post(s) Steve Rosenthal is responding was in one of the threads that have been flagged as inappropriate, and currently removed from general viewing. If the Communications Task Group concludes they are acceptable, the threads might be put back up. 
So it's best that he doesn't repost the conversations.

Are all those "Korean" "Chinese" and "Japanese" individuals you're referencing not citizens of the USA? I suspect a considerable (if not 100%) number of them are as "American" as you or I. 

I currently work for a Korean family-owned business and I mentioned the "offending story" to a co-worker who found it unoffensive and the situation laughable.

My wife discussed this issue at her work with Korean, Chinese, Japanese and American co-workers who also found this story rediculous.

I suggest we move on as this is evolving into unnecessary over-sensitivity.

I think that Mr. Norsworthy is being WAY over sensitive. I also think that PTG is being WAY too compliant and that it should take more than a single person complaining to warrant the removal of an entire discussion. Additionally, as is the PTG way, an entire discussion was removed without any of the participants being notified as to why, nor as to what they may have contributed to the discussion to help cause the removal. I have always believed that PTG is, among other things, here to educate. If we do something wrong, let us know what we did wrong so that we can better comply with the rules. Otherwise none of us learn and will likely break those rules again. 

I believe this forum should be treated as, more or less, public. And, like TV, if you don't like or approve of a given conversation there are always other conversations that you can participate in. Don't kill an entire conversation, involving multiple participants, because someone, as a single entity, may be offended. Just change the channel. 

David, it is quite likely the post(s) Steve Rosenthal is responding was in one of the threads that have been flagged as inappropriate, and currently removed from general viewing. If the Communications Task Group concludes they are acceptable, the threads might be put back up. 
So it's best that he doesn't repost the conversations.

Let's see:

"I had this (insert nationality of choice-try several)  customer and geez what a bitch!"  

You don't think there's a problem there?   

I do notice that most of the people finding no problem with the original post seem to belong to a group that doesn't tend to have to confront that issue. 

Bottom line, those who post here represent an industry which has members from all walks of life, nationalities, races, genders, disabilities, etc and which also represents a guild to which I belong and I don't want to be represented that way. 

I have no doubt that the original post was not intended to be offensive but that doesn't make it less so.  So everyone should be mindful of how they talk to and about people generally, especially in a public forum which represents a professional. In your local bar, I could care less about how the privileged decide to express themselves. 

Perhaps PTG did not take any action because they felt it was not noteworthy of such.  Her nationality was not portrayed negatively...her actions were.  I'm astounded you would conflate the two.  

> "I had this (insert nationality of choice-try several)  customer and geez what a bitch!" 

Sorry, but "bitch" implies a specific gender, which we're apparently not allowed to define. 😁

Let's see:

"I had this (insert nationality of choice-try several)  customer and geez what a bitch!"  

You don't think there's a problem there?   

I do notice that most of the people finding no problem with the original post seem to belong to a group that doesn't tend to have to confront that issue. 

Bottom line, those who post here represent an industry which has members from all walks of life, nationalities, races, genders, disabilities, etc and which also represents a guild to which I belong and I don't want to be represented that way. 

I have no doubt that the original post was not intended to be offensive but that doesn't make it less so.  So everyone should be mindful of how they talk to and about people generally, especially in a public forum which represents a professional. In your local bar, I could care less about how the privileged decide to express themselves. 

Perhaps PTG did not take any action because they felt it was not noteworthy of such.  Her nationality was not portrayed negatively...her actions were.  I'm astounded you would conflate the two.  

I think we can do better than random cheap shots at trans people.

> "I had this (insert nationality of choice-try several)  customer and geez what a bitch!" 

Sorry, but "bitch" implies a specific gender, which we're apparently not allowed to define. 😁

Let's see:

"I had this (insert nationality of choice-try several)  customer and geez what a bitch!"  

You don't think there's a problem there?   

I do notice that most of the people finding no problem with the original post seem to belong to a group that doesn't tend to have to confront that issue. 

Bottom line, those who post here represent an industry which has members from all walks of life, nationalities, races, genders, disabilities, etc and which also represents a guild to which I belong and I don't want to be represented that way. 

I have no doubt that the original post was not intended to be offensive but that doesn't make it less so.  So everyone should be mindful of how they talk to and about people generally, especially in a public forum which represents a professional. In your local bar, I could care less about how the privileged decide to express themselves. 

Perhaps PTG did not take any action because they felt it was not noteworthy of such.  Her nationality was not portrayed negatively...her actions were.  I'm astounded you would conflate the two.  

In my view is it's never appropriate to include the gender, race, or ethnicity of a client when telling a story about them.  Not in a forum like this. There may be edge cases where it is needed information, but certainly not here.  Like David Love said, save it for the bar or whatever.  Though it seems in this case the system in place for moderation is working.  The post has been flagged and is being reviewed.

The real mystery is that the poster let the client talk to them that way for half an hour. I would have made a move toward the door much sooner.  The quicker you can get out of the gravity well of an energy vampire like that, the better.  The lost wage?  WORTH IT. 

(Note, this post was in no way intended to disparage Transylvanians, those who like to stay up extremely late, or those who hate garlic.)

I think we can do better than random cheap shots at trans people.

> "I had this (insert nationality of choice-try several)  customer and geez what a bitch!" 

Sorry, but "bitch" implies a specific gender, which we're apparently not allowed to define. 😁

Let's see:

"I had this (insert nationality of choice-try several)  customer and geez what a bitch!"  

You don't think there's a problem there?   

I do notice that most of the people finding no problem with the original post seem to belong to a group that doesn't tend to have to confront that issue. 

Bottom line, those who post here represent an industry which has members from all walks of life, nationalities, races, genders, disabilities, etc and which also represents a guild to which I belong and I don't want to be represented that way. 

I have no doubt that the original post was not intended to be offensive but that doesn't make it less so.  So everyone should be mindful of how they talk to and about people generally, especially in a public forum which represents a professional. In your local bar, I could care less about how the privileged decide to express themselves.