Break it down for us

Dear Paul,

In the interest of my getting to know EXACTLY what you mean, I was wondering
if you'd answer a few questions, and maybe provide an in-depth breakdown
analysis of what you meant.

1) Please detail how much time you estimate you have wasted on this list in
particular, and other lists if indeed you have wasted time elsewhere.

2) please provide a "best guess" analysis of how much time you have caused to
be wasted on the part of others, due to your time being wasted, in which one
would naturally assume that you were not taking either the person(s) or
subject seriously, thereby wasting not only your time, but others.

3) presuming that the natural assumption asserted in question #2 is correct,
how seriously should this community take the Blackjack Scale System? Please
use a percentage, i.e. Blackjack-63%

Paul, thank you so much for your consideration of these questions. I not only
wish to know EXACTLY what you mean, but I don't want to waste any more of
your time if I can help it. Do you know what I mean?

Sincerely,
George

George,

{you wrote...}
>In the interest of my getting to know EXACTLY what you mean, I was >wondering...

And the rest. I think this is a clear case for a subject that should either be a private email exchange or taken over to metatuning. We are seriously off the stated mission of "Making Microtonal Music".

Thanks ever so much,
ListMom (who wants to keep the high flow of posts as on-topic as possible)

Jon, Mom, Admin.,

As it was this list, and thus this community, that was addressed by Paul's
comment, I feel it was germaine to use this forum, and not Meta-tuning.
Besides, I'm not a member of that group.

Most of you know that I don't use "Smiley Grammar", and as my humor trends
towards aridity, I offer this.

It was a joke. Tongue so firmly into cheek, I looked like Dizzy Gillespie with
a stroke.

Yeesh.

George

"Jonathan M. Szanto" wrote:

> George,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >In the interest of my getting to know EXACTLY what you mean, I was
> >wondering...
>
> And the rest. I think this is a clear case for a subject that should either
> be a private email exchange or taken over to metatuning. We are seriously
> off the stated mission of "Making Microtonal Music".
>
> Thanks ever so much,
> ListMom (who wants to keep the high flow of posts as on-topic as possible)
>
>
> [MMM info]-------------------------------------------------------
> More music files from MMM are at http://www.microtonal.org/music/
> -------------------------------------------------------[MMM info]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., George Zelenz <ploo@m...> wrote:
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> In the interest of my getting to know EXACTLY what you mean, I was
wondering
> if you'd answer a few questions, and maybe provide an in-depth
breakdown
> analysis of what you meant.

i replied to the original query over om metatuning.

> 1) Please detail how much time you estimate you have wasted on this
list in
> particular,

zero

> 2) please provide a "best guess" analysis of how much time you have
caused to
> be wasted on the part of others, due to your time being wasted, in
which one
> would naturally assume that you were not taking either the person
(s) or
> subject seriously, thereby wasting not only your time, but others.

i always take everything seriously, to a fault.

> 3) presuming that the natural assumption asserted in question #2 is
correct,
> how seriously should this community take the Blackjack Scale
System? Please
> use a percentage, i.e. Blackjack-63%

i don't know what is meant. the system was created to meet joseph
pehrson's specific desiderata. alison liked it and is using it too,
which already means it's done more than 100% of what it was intended
for.

George,

{you wrote...}
>As it was this list, and thus this community, that was addressed by Paul's >comment, I feel it was germaine to use this forum, and not Meta-tuning.

I know, I know. I'm not trying to use a hammer on this kind of stuff, but the central point is whether a topic, for whatever reason, gets so far away from our main purpose that it ends up annoying someone rather than enlightening them. I'm not perfect, so I may have stepped in early, but seeing as traffic is high, a topic that isn't really about our reason for existence is good to find another home.

>Besides, I'm not a member of that group.

But you know it's easy to join, and it was started for exactly this purpose: to have a place to start or continue discussions from our community(ies) when we want to keep signal/noise ratio high.

>It was a joke. Tongue so firmly into cheek, I looked like Dizzy Gillespie with
>a stroke.

I've gotten to know you pretty good, George, but maybe not everyone on the list would recognize the arid quality - ascii sucks in representing humans very well...

Cheers,
Jon

I know what you mean!

"Jonathan M. Szanto" wrote:

>
>
> Thanks ever so much,
> ListMom (who wants to keep the high flow of posts as on-topic as possible)

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm