New poll for metatuning

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
metatuning group:

Should the fissiparous tendency remain
in the ascendant?

o Yes, definately.
o No of course not, what's wrong with you?
o It depends on certain other factors I am not at liberty to disclose right now but soon the web site will be ready.
o Where's the FAQ?

To vote, please visit the following web page:

/metatuning/polls

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
metatuning group:

Is it okay to define tunings using
partial differential equations, or
should cents values also be given?

o Partial differential equations ONLY - if it's good enough for physical modelling, it's good enough for tunings. Haven't you read Sethares?
o Clearly we need to have the both of best worlds.
o Only cents makes sense.
o I'm prefer to keep it rational.
o Everything should be reduced to equal divisions of some interval; no other method will work.
o MIDI note numbers only, please.
o Standard western music notation plus the appropriate set of accidental marks is really the only solution worth talking about for _serious_ music.
o Please refer to this chart depicting my system of ASCII note modifiers.
o None of these methods will do!

To vote, please visit the following web page:

/metatuning/polls

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
metatuning group:

Is Paul Erlich the spawn of Satan, or
only a near relative

o Spawn.
o Near relative.
o Neither.
o Perhaps only the "pawn" of Satan.
o We love his "devilish" assistance.

To vote, please visit the following web page:

/metatuning/polls

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
metatuning group:

Is it OK to talk about lists that talk
about lists on this list? Or do we need
a separate list for that

o Infinite metarecursivity a la Hofstadter is A-OK by me - OK to talk about lists that talk about lists on this list.
o We need a separate list for that.
o Let's form a working group to discuss this issue.
o I'm OK with whatever the other fellows want.
o Let's follow Gary's outline and partition it into three levels of metapostal abstraction, that way everyone will be happy.
o Three levels? That might be enough to get started.

To vote, please visit the following web page:

/metatuning/polls

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

Graham you have a great sense of humor, and I'd much rather laugh
than fight. Thanks.

Mary

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
metatuning group:

Did birds evolve from dinosaurs?

o This is an undeniable scientific fact.
o There is considerable fossil evidence that supports this.
o There is some fossil evidence that supports this.
o This is nothing more than a just-so story - instructive perhaps, but not supported by scientific evidence.
o There is no scientific evidence to support this claim.
o This is unlikely to have occured, given what we know scientifically of birds and dinosaurs.
o This did not happen.
o Not sure.
o Other.

To vote, please visit the following web page:

/metatuning/polls

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
metatuning group:

What's your personality type?

o INTP
o INFP
o ENTP
o ENFP
o INTJ
o INFJ
o ENTJ
o ENFJ
o ISTP
o ISFP
o ESTP
o ESFP
o ISTJ
o ISFJ
o ESTJ
o ESFJ

To vote, please visit the following web page:

/metatuning/polls

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
metatuning group:

Should I pay Charles Lucy $50?

In this MakeMicroMusic post
/makemicromusic/topicId_18873.html#18921
I offer $50 for anyone who can find a case where a
personal attack is being directed at someone because
they disagree with theories like harmonic entropy.

Charles is claiming he was so attacked in this post:
/tuning/topicId_76831.html#76970

I'm claiming it isn't a personal attack to call someone
a "resident eccentric ... who outranks me in seniority
by a couple decades", since this is value-neutral or
could be considered a compliment. Furthermore, I believe
I give specific points where I am disagreeing with him,
not using his character to make my argument.

Charles disagrees. We have decided to make this poll.
A vote of 3/2 or better in Charles favor wins the money.
1/2 will be considered too small a sample, but 3/2 4/3
etc. will win. Voting is anonymous.

Thanks!

-Carl

o Yes, you slandered Charles to make your point
o No, this doesn't rise to the level of ad hominem

To vote, please visit the following web page:
/metatuning/surveys?id=12779494

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

Carl,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, metatuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> I'm claiming it isn't a personal attack to call someone
> a "resident eccentric ... who outranks me in seniority
> by a couple decades", since this is value-neutral or
> could be considered a compliment.

Haha.

The context with which you phrased it is telling:

"Charles Lucy is infamous for being of a proponent of a
theory nobody other than himself can understand.
...[snip]...
We tolerate him though because he's a resident eccentric."

I note that infamous is certainly a judgment call, and there is no way
a reasonable person can interpret your comment regarding 'tolerating'
Charles as anything but condescending. These aren't the biggest
personal slights in the history of written communication, but it is a
bit disingenuous for you to claim that this was plain vanilla
descriptors at work. Own up to the feelings behind your typing.

Cheers,
Jon

P.S. I figure your $50 is safe, at least for a while. Man, I gotta
laugh at how this stuff compares to what went on between Gene and I! I
owe him a drink with a little paper umbrella...

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> Carl,
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, metatuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> > I'm claiming it isn't a personal attack to call someone
> > a "resident eccentric ... who outranks me in seniority
> > by a couple decades", since this is value-neutral or
> > could be considered a compliment.
>
> Haha.
>
> The context with which you phrased it is telling:
>
> "Charles Lucy is infamous for being of a proponent of a
> theory nobody other than himself can understand.
> ...[snip]...
> We tolerate him though because he's a resident eccentric."
>
> I note that infamous is certainly a judgment call, and there
> is no way a reasonable person can interpret your comment
> regarding 'tolerating' Charles as anything but condescending.
> These aren't the biggest personal slights in the history of
> written communication, but it is a bit disingenuous for you
> to claim that this was plain vanilla descriptors at work. Own
> up to the feelings behind your typing.

I have no animosity for Charles, but I do think he's lost
all objectivity when it comes to evaluating music theories.
I don't know if I claimed I was just using vanilla
descriptors, and I won't deny it was condescending. But I
don't think it was a character attack for the purpose of
winning an argument either. I didn't attempt to diagnose
him with a personality disorder, call him a rude name like
"swine", or say his education or background made his points
unworthy of consideration.

-Carl

> I have no animosity for Charles, but I do think he's lost
> all objectivity when it comes to evaluating music theories.
> I don't know if I claimed I was just using vanilla
> descriptors, and I won't deny it was condescending. But I
> don't think it was a character attack for the purpose of
> winning an argument either. I didn't attempt to diagnose
> him with a personality disorder, call him a rude name like
> "swine", or say his education or background made his points
> unworthy of consideration.
>
> -Carl

Hahahaha, that post in that thread was maybe the funniest part of my
experience on the list so far. But I don't think it was really a
character attack.

Now, the recent posts between you and Grady, on the other hand... (and
I want the $50 for pointing this one out)

-Mike