The separate-from-dante Carl Lumma Debate Challenge Thread

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>
wrote:
>
> Oz was also one of those who felt it was fine to entertain Carl.

Oz felt it was fine to entertain Carl because it is fine to entertain Carl.

I decided not to start the rally against Carl because I knew the shitstorm
was coming down the pike anyway and I didn't want to be involved. My
approach was rather to respond to one of his comments and defend the piece
that he was impugning. Furthermore, I don't think that there is anything
wrong with him expressing his opinions as a judge about the pieces, although
I wish he had done it in a more constructive manner.

But the truth is that it would have been one thing for you to fly off the
handle in response to us all actively arguing with you. But you flew off the
handle because we decided not to flame Carl over it! What would it have
required for you to be happy? For us all to start the impending
shit fight that we all knew was coming? Please. I for one felt like staying
out of it, as it wasn't worth the trouble.

>
> /^_,',',',_ //^ /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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
-Mike

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

> 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.

On several points of fact, some of which extended out of the realm of
the esoteric and into the mathematically self-evident. I nicely
pointed these out to him offlist, taking a lot of time out of my day
to do so. His responses usually went into the realm of there being
some kind of scientific conspiracy that had gripped my mind and that I
needed to think outside the box. He didn't mention why I was supposed
to then listen to Terhardt's opinion as the end all be all of the
matter, being as I was supposed to dismiss Fourier's proofs as being
scientific conspiracy.

> 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.

I didn't think he was banned. Carl eventually interjected by telling
us both to take it offlist. In the end, Rick made another post about
the scientific conspiracy that was going on, and Carl PM'd me offlist
and asked me not to respond just to let the whole thing die, which it
did.

nothin' but good times!

--
* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com