Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning Debate Challenge!

Dante, you should look at this from a wider perspective. If you were in a
monolithic culture, one that did not allow independence of thought, and
determined to be dominant worldwide, you would be hard pressed to avoid public
debate, too.

Saying you like his music, as do I, could also be in the tradition of
someone liking Richard Wagner. (I prefer listening to Ozan's music.) Oz is
being truthful that he wants to be a good member of an international society.
He doesn't want to leave anyone out or poison a relationship, even if a
technical conflict of an ideology. IMHO

best, Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 11/3/2009 10:49:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
danterosati@... writes:

it doesn't look good: ozzy sez he doesn't want to debate me on this
question
'cause I don't know enough about particle physics (sic).

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Dante Rosati <_danterosati@danterosa_
(mailto:danterosati@...) > wrote:

> Ozan has been emailing me to tell me that he doesn't like me and give me
> advice on etiquette and civility, as well as pointers on how not to be
> defeated in a debate. I suggested to him that we have a debate on
good-ol'
> Metatuning on the following question:
>
> Is it logically or morally defensible to hold that people who believe
> something different from what you do will, or should, burn in hell after
> death?
>
> I'm waiting for Oz to accept the challenge so we can have a good
dust-up! A
> bit of the ole' Socratic debate!
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

Hi Johnny-

> Dante, you should look at this from a wider perspective. If you were in a
> monolithic culture, one that did not allow independence of thought, and
> determined to be dominant worldwide, you would be hard pressed to avoid public
> debate, too.

not sure what you are saying here: is it that he is afraid that if he
debates in public and sucks at it, his religious thought police might
go after him?

> Oz is being truthful that he wants to be a good member of an international society.
> He doesn't want to leave anyone out or poison a relationship, even if a
> technical conflict of an ideology. IMHO

so its possible to be "a good member of an international society" even
if you hope that a majority of said society will burn in hell?

and you're ok with conflicts of ideology, such as wanting
non-believers to burn in hell, or, say, thinking that not enough jews
died in the ovens, as long as everyone is polite to each other in
internet forums and pretends that the "other stuff" doesn't exist (or
at least, is not important enough to jeopardize discussions of the
finer points of tuning theory)?

Dante

>
> best, Johnny Reinhard
>
>
>
> In a message dated 11/3/2009 10:49:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>
> danterosati@... writes:
>
> it doesn't look good: ozzy sez he doesn't want to debate me on this
> question
> 'cause I don't know enough about particle physics (sic).
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Dante Rosati <_danterosati@danterosa_
> (mailto:danterosati@...) > wrote:
>
> > Ozan has been emailing me to tell me that he doesn't like me and give me
> > advice on etiquette and civility, as well as pointers on how not to be
> > defeated in a debate. I suggested to him that we have a debate on
> good-ol'
> > Metatuning on the following question:
> >
> > Is it logically or morally defensible to hold that people who believe
> > something different from what you do will, or should, burn in hell after
> > death?
> >
> > I'm waiting for Oz to accept the challenge so we can have a good
> dust-up! A
> > bit of the ole' Socratic debate!
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

🔗Afmmjr@...

Hi Johnny-

not sure what you are saying here: is it that he is afraid that if he
debates in public and sucks at it, his religious thought police might
go after him?
--Yes, it is likely considered unacceptable risk on his part. He'd be
better off if he did suck on it. But his eloquence is in itself a danger for
him to engage at variance with the "might makes right" philosophy so
prevalent these days.

> Oz is being truthful that he wants to be a good member of an
international society.
> He doesn't want to leave anyone out or poison a relationship, even if a
> technical conflict of an ideology. IMHO

so its possible to be "a good member of an international society" even
if you hope that a majority of said society will burn in hell?
-- It is deeply troubling. But it's a big picture. Ozan and I share our
academic works, both to great expense and gratitude. His actions belie any
true intent to have any society "burn in hell." As I recall, Ozan said he
would never use metatuning. You know my views, I believe.

and you're ok with conflicts of ideology, such as wanting
non-believers to burn in hell,
---there is no hell. simple.
or, say, thinking that not enough jews
died in the ovens,
-- why would you put this in his mouth? regardless, it's a 180 from
Ahmadinejad who says the complete opposite. It can't be both ways.
as long as everyone is polite to each other in
internet forums and pretends that the "other stuff" doesn't exist (or
at least, is not important enough to jeopardize discussions of the
finer points of tuning theory)?
Dante

>
> best, Johnny Reinhard
>
-- there's no pretending. none at all.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

>> not sure what you are saying here: is it that he is afraid that if he
>> debates in public and sucks at it, his religious thought police might
> >go after him?
> --Yes, it is likely considered unacceptable risk on his part. He'd be
> better off if he did suck on it. But his eloquence is in itself a danger for
> him to engage at variance with the "might makes right" philosophy so
> prevalent these days.

you make it sound like he's really a secular humanist at heart, but
must portray a fundamentalist in the interests of safety or career
advancement. I do not get this impression - he is, unfortunately, all
too sincere.

> >and you're ok with conflicts of ideology, such as wanting
>> non-believers to burn in hell,

> ---there is no hell. simple.

hell is living among religious fundamentalists of any persuasion.

> >or, say, thinking that not enough jews
>> died in the ovens,

> -- why would you put this in his mouth?

was not putting it in his mouth, just giving it as another example of
hate-belief.

>regardless, it's a 180 from
> Ahmadinejad who says the complete opposite. It can't be both ways.

if fundamentalists and fascists were actually concerned with niceties
like logical consistency, they might be on their way to evolving a
bit.

>> as long as everyone is polite to each other in
>> internet forums and pretends that the "other stuff" doesn't exist (or
>>at least, is not important enough to jeopardize discussions of the
>> finer points of tuning theory)?

> -- there's no pretending. none at all.

its an interesting question. How should one act towards those who you
know wish you harm (if only in the afterlife, but I maintain that
beliefs like that cannot but bleed over into everyday life and have
violent consequences)? Do you just discuss abstract things like tuning
theory in the hope that you can distract them from ever becoming
politicized?

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

the finer points of tuning theory cannot be discussed in any meaningful way on the list. two points

one . Rick ballan put forth ideas that they bullied in banning him when they said he was nonsense. He wrote to terhardt who answered and said he was right and the same conclusion he came to. This letter was forwarded to Carl and Mike. He was still banned and there was no retraction they thought terhardt works means. They continued to state that he was wrong. i myself was censored when i tried to state this

two.
for a judge to come out and do what carl did fits his actions over the years. That others find such actions fine and proceed to continue show that there is no civil action here.

personally i find Warren Summers work superior to any of those commenting on him. although i have not listened to this individual piece.

for the last reason i cannot go back. i think the whole situation is poison.

The tuning list has lost 25% percent of it membership from it high point

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

Afmmjr@... wrote:
> > > > > Hi Johnny-
>
> >> Dante, you should look at this from a wider perspective. If you were in a
>> monolithic culture, one that did not allow independence of thought, and
>> determined to be dominant worldwide, you would be hard pressed to avoid >> > public
> >> debate, too.
>> >
> not sure what you are saying here: is it that he is afraid that if he
> debates in public and sucks at it, his religious thought police might
> go after him? > --Yes, it is likely considered unacceptable risk on his part. He'd be > better off if he did suck on it. But his eloquence is in itself a danger for > him to engage at variance with the "might makes right" philosophy so > prevalent these days. >
>
> >> Oz is being truthful that he wants to be a good member of an >> > international society.
> >> He doesn't want to leave anyone out or poison a relationship, even if a
>> technical conflict of an ideology. IMHO
>> >
> so its possible to be "a good member of an international society" even
> if you hope that a majority of said society will burn in hell? > -- It is deeply troubling. But it's a big picture. Ozan and I share our > academic works, both to great expense and gratitude. His actions belie any > true intent to have any society "burn in hell." As I recall, Ozan said he > would never use metatuning. You know my views, I believe. >
> and you're ok with conflicts of ideology, such as wanting
> non-believers to burn in hell, > ---there is no hell. simple. > or, say, thinking that not enough jews
> died in the ovens, > -- why would you put this in his mouth? regardless, it's a 180 from > Ahmadinejad who says the complete opposite. It can't be both ways. > as long as everyone is polite to each other in
> internet forums and pretends that the "other stuff" doesn't exist (or
> at least, is not important enough to jeopardize discussions of the
> finer points of tuning theory)?
> Dante
>
> >> best, Johnny Reinhard
>>
>> > -- there's no pretending. none at all. >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

> one . Rick ballan put forth ideas that they bullied in banning him when
> they said he was nonsense. He wrote to terhardt who answered and said he
> was right and the same conclusion he came to. This letter was forwarded
> to Carl and Mike. He was still banned and there was no retraction they
> thought terhardt works means. They continued to state that he was wrong.
> i myself was censored when i tried to state this

I am not Carl and so I can't speak for why he was banned. As for
Terhardt, one of Rick's big points was that there was no such thing as
a "virtual pitch" because, as he hypothesized, the REAL pitch is
created just from looking at the resulting period of the signal when
you add the overtones together. Here's a quote from Terhardt's own
site describing the opposite: "An explanation of virtual pitch that on
first sight is highly suggestive is the "time-domain solution", i.e.,
measurement of the period of the tone signal. (Which, of course,
requires that the signal actually is periodic.) That kind of solution
was suggested already in the 19th Century, in particular by Seebeck
(1841a). Schouten (1940c, 1970a) strongly promoted that solution.
However, already in the 1950s and 1960s new observations had indicated
that the time-domain model in its original design was not adequate."

More to be found at http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/virtualp.html.

So as for Terhardt, either Rick left out the offending points when he
spoke to him, or he didn't communicate his question properly to
Terhardt. Terhardt is well known for his research on psychoacoustics
and such, and if I had taken the time to send a letter asking if
adding harmonics 3+4+5 together creates a sine of frequency 1, he
would have written back with a giant bold "NO".

We actually DID this experiment on the list, and Rick continued on
anyway. I ended up speaking to him a great deal offlist about the
subject and we eventually came to an understanding on the matter.

> two.
> for a judge to come out and do what carl did fits his actions over the
> years. That others find such actions fine and proceed to continue show
> that there is no civil action here.

I opened up my email a while ago to find this gem:

>> you impotent bullies

>> neither of you have any right to say any thing about anybody. you are
>> both the lowest scum i have ever ran accross on the intrnet.
>> you have done nothing and you have nothing to say and are incapable of
>> understandingc anything.

This was in response to a message I wrote saying
a) that it was funny how Carl was so far off the mark in guessing
who some of the composers were, and
b) that I really liked one of the pieces that Carl dismissed as
"shit". <-- READ THIS ONE TWICE

I have explained this three times now, and you keep repeating the same
fucking thing over and over like a broken record. Do you lack the
ability to read? Why the fuck are you pretending that I am Carl Lumma?
Do you not see in my very message where I am defending one of the
pieces that Carl wrote off? Jesus Christ.

Your message should have probably been something like this:

> you impotent bully

> you in the singular sense have no right to say any thing about anybody. you once again in the singular
> are the lowest scum i have ever ran accross on the intrnet.
> you have done nothing and you have nothing to say and are incapable of
> understandingc anything.

The only person so far who is "incapable of understandingc anything"
so far has been you, asshole.

-Mike

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

i would like to protest strongly the hostile takeover of my fundy-bashing
thread with extraneous tuning-theory bashing. this thread is 'posed to be
for lambasting the Professor of Oz and his pompous indignation. :-P

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>wrote:

>
>
> > one . Rick ballan put forth ideas that they bullied in banning him when
> > they said he was nonsense. He wrote to terhardt who answered and said he
> > was right and the same conclusion he came to. This letter was forwarded
> > to Carl and Mike. He was still banned and there was no retraction they
> > thought terhardt works means. They continued to state that he was wrong.
> > i myself was censored when i tried to state this
>
> I am not Carl and so I can't speak for why he was banned. As for
> Terhardt, one of Rick's big points was that there was no such thing as
> a "virtual pitch" because, as he hypothesized, the REAL pitch is
> created just from looking at the resulting period of the signal when
> you add the overtones together. Here's a quote from Terhardt's own
> site describing the opposite: "An explanation of virtual pitch that on
> first sight is highly suggestive is the "time-domain solution", i.e.,
> measurement of the period of the tone signal. (Which, of course,
> requires that the signal actually is periodic.) That kind of solution
> was suggested already in the 19th Century, in particular by Seebeck
> (1841a). Schouten (1940c, 1970a) strongly promoted that solution.
> However, already in the 1950s and 1960s new observations had indicated
> that the time-domain model in its original design was not adequate."
>
> More to be found at
> http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/virtualp.html.
>
> So as for Terhardt, either Rick left out the offending points when he
> spoke to him, or he didn't communicate his question properly to
> Terhardt. Terhardt is well known for his research on psychoacoustics
> and such, and if I had taken the time to send a letter asking if
> adding harmonics 3+4+5 together creates a sine of frequency 1, he
> would have written back with a giant bold "NO".
>
> We actually DID this experiment on the list, and Rick continued on
> anyway. I ended up speaking to him a great deal offlist about the
> subject and we eventually came to an understanding on the matter.
>
>
> > two.
> > for a judge to come out and do what carl did fits his actions over the
> > years. That others find such actions fine and proceed to continue show
> > that there is no civil action here.
>
> I opened up my email a while ago to find this gem:
>
> >> you impotent bullies
>
> >> neither of you have any right to say any thing about anybody. you are
> >> both the lowest scum i have ever ran accross on the intrnet.
> >> you have done nothing and you have nothing to say and are incapable of
> >> understandingc anything.
>
> This was in response to a message I wrote saying
> a) that it was funny how Carl was so far off the mark in guessing
> who some of the composers were, and
> b) that I really liked one of the pieces that Carl dismissed as
> "shit". <-- READ THIS ONE TWICE
>
> I have explained this three times now, and you keep repeating the same
> fucking thing over and over like a broken record. Do you lack the
> ability to read? Why the fuck are you pretending that I am Carl Lumma?
> Do you not see in my very message where I am defending one of the
> pieces that Carl wrote off? Jesus Christ.
>
> Your message should have probably been something like this:
>
> > you impotent bully
>
> > you in the singular sense have no right to say any thing about anybody.
> you once again in the singular
> > are the lowest scum i have ever ran accross on the intrnet.
> > you have done nothing and you have nothing to say and are incapable of
> > understandingc anything.
>
> The only person so far who is "incapable of understandingc anything"
> so far has been you, asshole.
>
> -Mike
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

i never said you were carl.
you never responded ternardt letter being sent to you

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

Mike Battaglia wrote:
>> one . Rick ballan put forth ideas that they bullied in banning him when
>> they said he was nonsense. He wrote to terhardt who answered and said he
>> was right and the same conclusion he came to. This letter was forwarded
>> to Carl and Mike. He was still banned and there was no retraction they
>> thought terhardt works means. They continued to state that he was wrong.
>> i myself was censored when i tried to state this
>> >
> I am not Carl and so I can't speak for why he was banned. As for
> Terhardt, one of Rick's big points was that there was no such thing as
> a "virtual pitch" because, as he hypothesized, the REAL pitch is
> created just from looking at the resulting period of the signal when
> you add the overtones together. Here's a quote from Terhardt's own
> site describing the opposite: "An explanation of virtual pitch that on
> first sight is highly suggestive is the "time-domain solution", i.e.,
> measurement of the period of the tone signal. (Which, of course,
> requires that the signal actually is periodic.) That kind of solution
> was suggested already in the 19th Century, in particular by Seebeck
> (1841a). Schouten (1940c, 1970a) strongly promoted that solution.
> However, already in the 1950s and 1960s new observations had indicated
> that the time-domain model in its original design was not adequate."
>
> More to be found at http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/virtualp.html.
>
> So as for Terhardt, either Rick left out the offending points when he
> spoke to him, or he didn't communicate his question properly to
> Terhardt. Terhardt is well known for his research on psychoacoustics
> and such, and if I had taken the time to send a letter asking if
> adding harmonics 3+4+5 together creates a sine of frequency 1, he
> would have written back with a giant bold "NO".
>
> We actually DID this experiment on the list, and Rick continued on
> anyway. I ended up speaking to him a great deal offlist about the
> subject and we eventually came to an understanding on the matter.
>
>
>
> >> two.
>> for a judge to come out and do what carl did fits his actions over the
>> years. That others find such actions fine and proceed to continue show
>> that there is no civil action here.
>> >
>
> I opened up my email a while ago to find this gem:
>
> >>> you impotent bullies
>>> >
> >>> neither of you have any right to say any thing about anybody. you are
>>> both the lowest scum i have ever ran accross on the intrnet.
>>> you have done nothing and you have nothing to say and are incapable of
>>> understandingc anything.
>>> >
> This was in response to a message I wrote saying
> a) that it was funny how Carl was so far off the mark in guessing
> who some of the composers were, and
> b) that I really liked one of the pieces that Carl dismissed as
> "shit". <-- READ THIS ONE TWICE
>
> I have explained this three times now, and you keep repeating the same
> fucking thing over and over like a broken record. Do you lack the
> ability to read? Why the fuck are you pretending that I am Carl Lumma?
> Do you not see in my very message where I am defending one of the
> pieces that Carl wrote off? Jesus Christ.
>
> Your message should have probably been something like this:
>
> >> you impotent bully
>> >
> >> you in the singular sense have no right to say any thing about anybody. you once again in the singular
>> are the lowest scum i have ever ran accross on the intrnet.
>> you have done nothing and you have nothing to say and are incapable of
>> understandingc anything.
>> >
> The only person so far who is "incapable of understandingc anything"
> so far has been you, asshole.
>
> -Mike
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

i always understood that you defended the piece, but you defend carls actions by acting like it is OK as well as others after you.

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Oz was also one of those who felt it was fine to entertain Carl.

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

Dante Rosati wrote:
> i would like to protest strongly the hostile takeover of my fundy-bashing
> thread with extraneous tuning-theory bashing. this thread is 'posed to be
> for lambasting the Professor of Oz and his pompous indignation. :-P
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>wrote:
>
> >> >>> one . Rick ballan put forth ideas that they bullied in banning him when
>>> they said he was nonsense. He wrote to terhardt who answered and said he
>>> was right and the same conclusion he came to. This letter was forwarded
>>> to Carl and Mike. He was still banned and there was no retraction they
>>> thought terhardt works means. They continued to state that he was wrong.
>>> i myself was censored when i tried to state this
>>> >> I am not Carl and so I can't speak for why he was banned. As for
>> Terhardt, one of Rick's big points was that there was no such thing as
>> a "virtual pitch" because, as he hypothesized, the REAL pitch is
>> created just from looking at the resulting period of the signal when
>> you add the overtones together. Here's a quote from Terhardt's own
>> site describing the opposite: "An explanation of virtual pitch that on
>> first sight is highly suggestive is the "time-domain solution", i.e.,
>> measurement of the period of the tone signal. (Which, of course,
>> requires that the signal actually is periodic.) That kind of solution
>> was suggested already in the 19th Century, in particular by Seebeck
>> (1841a). Schouten (1940c, 1970a) strongly promoted that solution.
>> However, already in the 1950s and 1960s new observations had indicated
>> that the time-domain model in its original design was not adequate."
>>
>> More to be found at
>> http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/virtualp.html.
>>
>> So as for Terhardt, either Rick left out the offending points when he
>> spoke to him, or he didn't communicate his question properly to
>> Terhardt. Terhardt is well known for his research on psychoacoustics
>> and such, and if I had taken the time to send a letter asking if
>> adding harmonics 3+4+5 together creates a sine of frequency 1, he
>> would have written back with a giant bold "NO".
>>
>> We actually DID this experiment on the list, and Rick continued on
>> anyway. I ended up speaking to him a great deal offlist about the
>> subject and we eventually came to an understanding on the matter.
>>
>>
>> >>> two.
>>> for a judge to come out and do what carl did fits his actions over the
>>> years. That others find such actions fine and proceed to continue show
>>> that there is no civil action here.
>>> >> I opened up my email a while ago to find this gem:
>>
>> >>>> you impotent bullies
>>>> >>>> neither of you have any right to say any thing about anybody. you are
>>>> both the lowest scum i have ever ran accross on the intrnet.
>>>> you have done nothing and you have nothing to say and are incapable of
>>>> understandingc anything.
>>>> >> This was in response to a message I wrote saying
>> a) that it was funny how Carl was so far off the mark in guessing
>> who some of the composers were, and
>> b) that I really liked one of the pieces that Carl dismissed as
>> "shit". <-- READ THIS ONE TWICE
>>
>> I have explained this three times now, and you keep repeating the same
>> fucking thing over and over like a broken record. Do you lack the
>> ability to read? Why the fuck are you pretending that I am Carl Lumma?
>> Do you not see in my very message where I am defending one of the
>> pieces that Carl wrote off? Jesus Christ.
>>
>> Your message should have probably been something like this:
>>
>> >>> you impotent bully
>>> >>> you in the singular sense have no right to say any thing about anybody.
>>> >> you once again in the singular
>> >>> are the lowest scum i have ever ran accross on the intrnet.
>>> you have done nothing and you have nothing to say and are incapable of
>>> understandingc anything.
>>> >> The only person so far who is "incapable of understandingc anything"
>> so far has been you, asshole.
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>> >>
>> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

Kraig Grady wrote:
> i never said you were carl.
> you never responded ternardt letter being sent to you

I'm neither Carl nor Mike. But I do have this forwarded letter that I never responded to. It doesn't say what you're claiming it says. I won't quote it without permission, but we can all go to Terhardt's website and see what he puts on the record. I didn't reply because there was no need -- it confirms that reality still applies.

What Rick said on the list was wrong. On two points of fact, as I recall. That's not a big deal, but it happened. I don't remember anybody bullying him. Some of us told him he was wrong -- that's a different thing.

I never heard about him being banned. If that was the case, let's discuss it. If it was simply that an off-topic thread was cut, cry me a river.

Graham

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Just found out about this thread from Mike B. over on facebook.
A grand total of 29 e-mail addresses have ever been banned
from the tuning list, and they all have names like
"cameron_diaz26". -Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> Kraig Grady wrote:
> > i never said you were carl.
> > you never responded ternardt letter being sent to you
>
> I'm neither Carl nor Mike. But I do have this forwarded
> letter that I never responded to. It doesn't say what
> you're claiming it says. I won't quote it without
> permission, but we can all go to Terhardt's website and see
> what he puts on the record. I didn't reply because there
> was no need -- it confirms that reality still applies.
>
> What Rick said on the list was wrong. On two points of
> fact, as I recall. That's not a big deal, but it happened.
> I don't remember anybody bullying him. Some of us told
> him he was wrong -- that's a different thing.
>
> I never heard about him being banned. If that was the case,
> let's discuss it. If it was simply that an off-topic thread
> was cut, cry me a river.
>
> Graham

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

vut you don theenk Cameron Diaz could be intreshtet in tunink theeree?

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> Just found out about this thread from Mike B. over on facebook.
> A grand total of 29 e-mail addresses have ever been banned
> from the tuning list, and they all have names like
> "cameron_diaz26". -Carl
>
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com <metatuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Graham
> Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
> >
> > Kraig Grady wrote:
> > > i never said you were carl.
> > > you never responded ternardt letter being sent to you
> >
> > I'm neither Carl nor Mike. But I do have this forwarded
> > letter that I never responded to. It doesn't say what
> > you're claiming it says. I won't quote it without
> > permission, but we can all go to Terhardt's website and see
> > what he puts on the record. I didn't reply because there
> > was no need -- it confirms that reality still applies.
> >
> > What Rick said on the list was wrong. On two points of
> > fact, as I recall. That's not a big deal, but it happened.
> > I don't remember anybody bullying him. Some of us told
> > him he was wrong -- that's a different thing.
> >
> > I never heard about him being banned. If that was the case,
> > let's discuss it. If it was simply that an off-topic thread
> > was cut, cry me a river.
> >
> > Graham
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]