Please keep tuning-math separate

Paul, I don't know why the poll came out as it did, but I wish you'd
keep tuning-math separate. The main tuning list is still SO bloated,
any relief is welcome, and any cessation of relief is frightening to
contemplate.

I have a couple of subjects I want to post about on tuning-math when I
get a chance to write them up. If it's gone, I might just skip'm -
who wants to read about the details of adaptive tuning in the fat list?

JdL

----- Original Message -----
From: John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@...>
To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 7:17 PM
Subject: [metatuning] Please keep tuning-math separate

> Paul, I don't know why the poll came out as it did, but I wish you'd
> keep tuning-math separate. The main tuning list is still SO bloated,
> any relief is welcome, and any cessation of relief is frightening to
> contemplate

The list isn't bloated because of posts about math,
it's bloated due to people making multiple posts
that probably could have been posted in a few.

David Beardsley

[I wrote:]
>>Paul, I don't know why the poll came out as it did, but I wish you'd
>>keep tuning-math separate. The main tuning list is still SO bloated,
>>any relief is welcome, and any cessation of relief is frightening to
>>contemplate

[David Beardsley:]
>The list isn't bloated because of posts about math,
>it's bloated due to people making multiple posts
>that probably could have been posted in a few.

That may well be, but all attempts to unbloat it so far have failed.
I'd rather report my lengthy, esoteric, adaptive tuning refinements
somewhere else. Don't want to risk pushing the daily digest count from
three to four!!

JdL