Re: [tuning] not getting it [move]

jpehrson2 wrote:
> The thing that doesn't make any sense to me is this:
>
> If we are to use this Yahoo list as just "e-mail" which is *entirely*
> possible, it becomes just like the Columbia list.
>
> And, there is *no advertising* on it, just like the Columbia list.

There is advertising on the Yahoo list. Look at the bottom of the message.

> So, what's the difference?? People are, I guess, afraid that Yahoo
> will go down? There could also be a change of administration at
> Columbia. Look at the Mills list. That changed because of a change
> in administration and it's been *very* difficult to reconstruct the
> archives of that list.

The archives for the Columbia list are sitting there for download. If you're
worried about the list going down, take a copy each month. Because it uses a
free package, you could even reconstruct the interface on another website.

> In fact, until now, I haven't seen more than a handful of them.
> Robert Walker has been working on it but, quite frankly, what
> happened at Mills was *at least* as bad as anything Yahoo could do to
> us!

Which is why it's important to have the freedom Columbia give us.

> So, basically, the idea, as I understand it, of a move was to try to
> find an AD FREE WEB INTERFACE. The e-mail functions are entirely the
> same!

The e-mail functions are a lot more powerful with Columbia. You can make
changes to your subscription without using the web interface. Compare that
with Yahoo where they can change your subscription without you using the web
interface.

> So, unless somebody finds a site we can use with an ad free Web
> Interface, what is the point of the move?

We have an ad free web interface at Columbia.

> Logically, it doesn't make any sense.
>
> If you disagree, what is the logic? I'm anxiously waiting for some.

Every change made to the list since Yahoo took over has been for the worse.
There have also been big outages. Why not switch to a package that's being
improved instead?

Graham

>The e-mail functions are a lot more powerful with Columbia.

Are they?

>You can make changes to your subscription without using the web
>interface.

Yahoo! supports this.

>>So, unless somebody finds a site we can use with an ad free Web
>>Interface, what is the point of the move?
>
>We have an ad free web interface at Columbia.

URL?

>Every change made to the list since Yahoo took over has been
>for the worse. There have also been big outages. Why not
>switch to a package that's being improved instead?

Makes sense to me!

-Carl

--- In metatuning@y..., Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_2255.html#2255

> jpehrson2 wrote:
> > The thing that doesn't make any sense to me is this:
> >
> > If we are to use this Yahoo list as just "e-mail" which is
*entirely*
> > possible, it becomes just like the Columbia list.
> >
> > And, there is *no advertising* on it, just like the Columbia list.
>
> There is advertising on the Yahoo list. Look at the bottom of the
message.
>
> > So, what's the difference?? People are, I guess, afraid that
Yahoo
> > will go down? There could also be a change of administration at
> > Columbia. Look at the Mills list. That changed because of a
change
> > in administration and it's been *very* difficult to reconstruct
the
> > archives of that list.
>
> The archives for the Columbia list are sitting there for download.
If you're
> worried about the list going down, take a copy each month. Because
it uses a
> free package, you could even reconstruct the interface on another
website.
>
> > In fact, until now, I haven't seen more than a handful of them.
> > Robert Walker has been working on it but, quite frankly, what
> > happened at Mills was *at least* as bad as anything Yahoo could
do to
> > us!
>
> Which is why it's important to have the freedom Columbia give us.
>
> > So, basically, the idea, as I understand it, of a move was to try
to
> > find an AD FREE WEB INTERFACE. The e-mail functions are entirely
the
> > same!
>
> The e-mail functions are a lot more powerful with Columbia. You
can make
> changes to your subscription without using the web interface.
Compare that
> with Yahoo where they can change your subscription without you
using the web
> interface.
>
> > So, unless somebody finds a site we can use with an ad free Web
> > Interface, what is the point of the move?
>
> We have an ad free web interface at Columbia.
>
> > Logically, it doesn't make any sense.
> >
> > If you disagree, what is the logic? I'm anxiously waiting for
some.
>
> Every change made to the list since Yahoo took over has been for
the worse.
> There have also been big outages. Why not switch to a package
that's being
> improved instead?
>
>
> Graham

Hi Graham!

Well, I'm, personally, obviously not as bothered by the ads as *you*
are. I also find the Columbia web interface to be pretty "primitive."

One can't even *post* to the Columbia list from the Web!

So far, the Columbia list doesn't seem to be so "popular." Not many
people are posting to it.

Maybe they will in the future? Who knows.

Quite frankly, as long as I can read the text, it really doesn't make
all *that* much difference to me, if people are so offended by the
ads that they want to go there!

best,

Joseph

clumma wrote:

> >The e-mail functions are a lot more powerful with Columbia.
>
> Are they?

I thought so, but Yahoo does more than I thought.

> >You can make changes to your subscription without using the web
> >interface.
>
> Yahoo! supports this.

Yes, to an extent. But you can't stop them HTML-ifying messages by
e-mail. Columbia don't start HTML-ifying messages behind my back in the
first place.

> >>So, unless somebody finds a site we can use with an ad free Web
> >>Interface, what is the point of the move?
> >
> >We have an ad free web interface at Columbia.
>
> URL?

You know there's an interface, but it doesn't do what everybody wants.

> >Every change made to the list since Yahoo took over has been
> >for the worse. There have also been big outages. Why not
> >switch to a package that's being improved instead?
>
> Makes sense to me!

For the record, all the problems raised so far are also being dealt with
on the Mailman developers' list. You can find it by following links from
the Columbia tuning main page. Enabling online posting should be easy.
One reason it hasn't been done is that the archives are only supposed to
be archives. Another is that there are plans to completely rewrite or
replace the web archive package (Pipermail).

Graham

--- In metatuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_2255.html#2260

> clumma wrote:
>
> > >The e-mail functions are a lot more powerful with Columbia.
> >
> > Are they?
>
> I thought so, but Yahoo does more than I thought.
>
> > >You can make changes to your subscription without using the web
> > >interface.
> >
> > Yahoo! supports this.
>
> Yes, to an extent. But you can't stop them HTML-ifying messages by
> e-mail. Columbia don't start HTML-ifying messages behind my back
in the
> first place.
>
> > >>So, unless somebody finds a site we can use with an ad free Web
> > >>Interface, what is the point of the move?
> > >
> > >We have an ad free web interface at Columbia.
> >
> > URL?
>
> You know there's an interface, but it doesn't do what everybody
wants.
>
> > >Every change made to the list since Yahoo took over has been
> > >for the worse. There have also been big outages. Why not
> > >switch to a package that's being improved instead?
> >
> > Makes sense to me!
>
> For the record, all the problems raised so far are also being dealt
with
> on the Mailman developers' list. You can find it by following
links from
> the Columbia tuning main page. Enabling online posting should be
easy.
> One reason it hasn't been done is that the archives are only
supposed to
> be archives. Another is that there are plans to completely rewrite
or
> replace the web archive package (Pipermail).
>
>
> Graham

***Hi Graham!

Well, that will solve the "problem." A better Web interface and,
I'll admit, "we're outta here!"

jp

>>>You can make changes to your subscription without using the web
>>>interface.
>>
>>Yahoo! supports this.
>
>Yes, to an extent. But you can't stop them HTML-ifying messages by
>e-mail. Columbia don't start HTML-ifying messages behind my back
>in the first place.

No argument here.

>>>>So, unless somebody finds a site we can use with an ad free Web
>>>>Interface, what is the point of the move?
>>>
>>>We have an ad free web interface at Columbia.
>>
>> URL?
>
>You know there's an interface, but it doesn't do what everybody
>wants.

I don't use the web, except for this list, but let's figure out
what people do want:

() Threaded or chronological message display.

() Searchable archives

() The abilility to keep all the separate lists we have now,
and perhaps even the freedom for any member to proliferate
lists.

This last one is bound to cause excitement. I think extra
lists are a mess. But it's clear we want the different
places to talk in different groups, or about different things.
I would suggest we add a line to the outgoing message headers
for sub-list. Creating a new sub-list might require a vote,
or be completely open as it is now. The web interface should
support filtering messages by some sub-list mask, and the
e-mail service should support only sending you messages in the
sub-lists you want. In a perfect world, the sort-by-column
database features of my e-mail client would be extensible to
extra headers, but I can always make a filter and funnel the
mail into separate mailboxes.

-Carl

>I don't use the web, except for this list, but let's figure out
>what people do want:
>
> () Threaded or chronological message display.
>
> () Searchable archives
>
> () The abilility to keep all the separate lists we have now,
> and perhaps even the freedom for any member to proliferate
> lists.

And I think we should not support posting from the web.
People can just use any web-based e-mail they want.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:

> And I think we should not support posting from the web.
> People can just use any web-based e-mail they want.
>
> -Carl

do you have any suggestions? currently, i find the yahoo lists' web
interface to be at least 5 times more efficient than using my web-
based e-mail account.

>You know there's an interface, but it doesn't do what
>everybody wants.

Why don't you give me the URL. What I saw wasn't
even in the same ballpark. Chris said this:

>Yes, there will be web.
>
>Yes, there will be threading and thread-based searching.
>
>As far as my sysadmin informed me, it's basically the
>same as Yahoo, except no ads.

-Carl

>>And I think we should not support posting from the web.
>>People can just use any web-based e-mail they want.
>>
>> -Carl
>
>do you have any suggestions? currently, i find the yahoo lists'
>web interface to be at least 5 times more efficient than using
>my web-based e-mail account.

It's using the same interface as my free yahoo web mail account,
except you get to click on "reply" in the message listing and
have it put the address and subject in the blank outgoing
message. This saves two cut and pastes.

It would be easy to send this info to the user's default mail
client via the hyperlinks on our private site. I don't think
web-based e-mail can take on "defaul mail client" status in
Windows, but maybe MSN or hotmail can do it, who knows?

-Carl

--- In metatuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> do you have any suggestions? currently, i find the yahoo lists' web
> interface to be at least 5 times more efficient than using my web-
> based e-mail account.

Yeah, and I find my email program of choice (Eudora Pro) to be at least 10 times more efficient than using the stupid Yahoo lists' web interface.

Nothing is faster at working with an email list than an email program. I am discounting those fortunate people who might have cable/DSL because, until the day *everyone* has that kind of access, we must look to the person with the 'average' connection. And to have to be logged onto a slow web site just to post mail seems totally dorky to me. Maybe my time is just too valuable these days...

Cheers,
Jon

My biggest objection to moving the list would be the chances of someone stumbling into the list would diminish greatly. As academic as the subject has become, I tend to resist any move to make it more so.

jonszanto wrote:

> --- In metatuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > do you have any suggestions? currently, i find the yahoo lists' web
> > interface to be at least 5 times more efficient than using my web-
> > based e-mail account.
>
> Yeah, and I find my email program of choice (Eudora Pro) to be at least 10 times more efficient than using the stupid Yahoo lists' web interface.
>
> Nothing is faster at working with an email list than an email program. I am discounting those fortunate people who might have cable/DSL because, until the day *everyone* has that kind of access, we must look to the person with the 'average' connection. And to have to be logged onto a slow web site just to post mail seems totally dorky to me. Maybe my time is just too valuable these days...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
>

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

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

--- In metatuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > do you have any suggestions? currently, i find the yahoo lists'
web
> > interface to be at least 5 times more efficient than using my web-
> > based e-mail account.
>
> Yeah, and I find my email program of choice (Eudora Pro) to be at
>least 10 times more efficient than using the stupid Yahoo lists' web
>interface.

well then, we're coming from very different perspectives here!

> Nothing is faster at working with an email list than an email
>program.

speak for yourself, jon!

>And to have to be logged onto a slow web site just to post mail
>seems totally dorky to me.

well, this is my permenent, irretrievable condition, it seems. in
order to post mail, i have to log onto a slow web site. the yahoo
interface is far superior for me, right now -- and its slowness seems
to have disappeared, for now.

i hope everyone with an opinion on this has voted:

/tuning/surveys?id=896754

--- In metatuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> well then, we're coming from very different perspectives here!

Perspectives has nothing to do with the efficiency of a medium. To read a msg and reply to it takes no time for the web site to create a new 'post' page, or to click on something and wait for the msg to post. I simply get all the msgs in my email program, reply to them as I want, and click once to send all the replies.

That is being efficient. Or at least how I view it.

> speak for yourself, jon!

Don't I always? And doesn't everyone? These are opinions, though your penchant for logical conclusions could certainly see the faster facility for email, if you used that as the medium I suppose.

> >And to have to be logged onto a slow web site just to post mail
> >seems totally dorky to me.
>
> well, this is my permenent, irretrievable condition, it seems.

Why?

> in order to post mail, i have to log onto a slow web site.

This is progress?

> the yahoo interface is far superior for me, right now -- and its
> slowness seems to have disappeared, for now.

Have fun - to each his own...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_2255.html#2266

> --- In metatuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
>
> > And I think we should not support posting from the web.
> > People can just use any web-based e-mail they want.
> >
> > -Carl
>
> do you have any suggestions? currently, i find the yahoo lists' web
> interface to be at least 5 times more efficient than using my web-
> based e-mail account.

***I agree with this, Paul, even with the number. You actually
managed to *quantize* even this! :)

I guess I'm speaking, though, from the prejudice of somebody using a
fast "always on" cable connection available in a building heavily
populated by New York media professionals, so I guess Jon is probably
right about many "average" Web connections...

J. Pehrson

--- In metatuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:

> Have fun - to each his own...

sure . . . all i know is, it takes me almost two hours using e-mail
to do what it normally takes me twenty minutes to do on the tuning
list website. that's all i was trying to say. sorry for being
so 'dorky'.

--- In metatuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> ***I agree with this, Paul, even with the number. You actually
> managed to *quantize* even this! :)

oops . . . you know, i learned about 8 years ago that people like me
a lot better when i shut up and stick to playing the guitar . . .
about 14 times better, actually . . . :)

> I guess I'm speaking, though, from the prejudice of somebody using
a
> fast "always on" cable connection available in a building heavily
> populated by New York media professionals, so I guess Jon is
probably
> right about many "average" Web connections...

sure . . . and anyone who uses mail as their primary interface just
has to endure a few lines of advertising from yahoo at the bottom of
their messages . . . correct?

meanwhile, i wish mark nowitzky were responding to any of our e-
mails . . . otherwise the whole prospect of "moving" kind of reduces
to yet another splintering of the main list, unfortunately.

--- In metatuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> sure . . . all i know is, it takes me almost two hours using e-mail
> to do what it normally takes me twenty minutes to do on the tuning
> list website. that's all i was trying to say. sorry for being
> so 'dorky'.

Hiya. "Dorky" was meant in regards to the operation, certainly not the operator (you)! No slight there...

But Paul - I can't *for the life of me* imagine how it could take LONGER with an email program!!!

When I download mail, it puts all the messages in the folder I've chosen. They are all there, and I don't need to keep clicking on next, or messages, or anything from the web. I simply read each message (which takes fractions of seconds to come up from the hard drive), reply to each, and then with one click post them all. And no interaction with an overloaded server (Yahoo).

Please explain to me how a process, where when clicking on either a msg header or the 'next' msg, thereby initiating a request to the server to spit out an html web page of a text message, which when you want to reply to it you get another request, which spits out a reply page, and then you have to 'send' each of those replies separately rather than in a group - each step requiring data be sent to your machine over the net when it could simply be sitting there...

...how in the world could that process be *faster*?

I believe, sincerely, that you are simply used to doing it that way, and have not experienced a decent email program or client. Because the plain facts of the matter (what you would call the 'logical' end of the discussion) - the matter of fetching information from the server and serving it up to you, at each point - there is NO WAY that replying web-based could be faster than what you could do on your own machine.

Objectively,
Jon

Jon,

> Because the plain facts of the matter (what you would call
> the 'logical' end of the discussion) - the matter of fetching
> information from the server and serving it up to you, at each
> point - there is NO WAY that replying web-based could be
> faster than what you could do on your own machine.

This isn't my thread - but I think you might have
misunderstood what he was saying (I had to read it
twice to be sure). I think he was comparing the speed
of *web* mail (like mailing from a yahoo address where
you have to sign in and poke through folders and all
through a web interface) to the list web interface & I
can see that that would be true (list web interface
faster than web mail interface). But obviously in the
case of a POP account, accessed from one's email
program, you are right here.

- Jeff

--- In metatuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_2255.html#2278

> --- In metatuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > ***I agree with this, Paul, even with the number. You actually
> > managed to *quantize* even this! :)
>
> oops . . . you know, i learned about 8 years ago that people like
me
> a lot better when i shut up and stick to playing the guitar . . .
> about 14 times better, actually . . . :)
>
> > I guess I'm speaking, though, from the prejudice of somebody
using
> a
> > fast "always on" cable connection available in a building heavily
> > populated by New York media professionals, so I guess Jon is
> probably
> > right about many "average" Web connections...
>
> sure . . . and anyone who uses mail as their primary interface just
> has to endure a few lines of advertising from yahoo at the bottom
of their messages . . . correct?
>

***Hi Paul!

That's the thing. I don't really understand what all the "hoopla" is
about. Quite frankly, the Columbia list, with its present interface
doesn't quite "do it" for me.

However, if everybody decides to move over there, I'll go over there.

So far, though, the Columbia list has still been "slower" in the
number of posts than the Yahoo main list, which has been slow enough
of late as it is...

J. Pehrson

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J .Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> Jon,
>
> > Because the plain facts of the matter (what you would call
> > the 'logical' end of the discussion) - the matter of fetching
> > information from the server and serving it up to you, at each
> > point - there is NO WAY that replying web-based could be
> > faster than what you could do on your own machine.
>
> This isn't my thread - but I think you might have
> misunderstood what he was saying (I had to read it
> twice to be sure). I think he was comparing the speed
> of *web* mail (like mailing from a yahoo address where
> you have to sign in and poke through folders and all
> through a web interface) to the list web interface & I
> can see that that would be true (list web interface
> faster than web mail interface).

that's right, especially when you consider all the cross-referencing
i do in typical posting sessions. it's the price i pay for having
a 'custom' e-mail address, i suppose . . .

>>This isn't my thread - but I think you might have
>>misunderstood what he was saying (I had to read it
>>twice to be sure). I think he was comparing the speed
>>of *web* mail (like mailing from a yahoo address where
>>you have to sign in and poke through folders and all
>>through a web interface) to the list web interface & I
>>can see that that would be true (list web interface
>>faster than web mail interface).
>
>that's right, especially when you consider all the cross-
>referencing i do in typical posting sessions. it's the price
>i pay for having a 'custom' e-mail address, i suppose . . .

What ARE you people talking about? I clearly enumerated
the pros and cons of this situation and showed how it
could be provided in e-mail.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
> >>This isn't my thread - but I think you might have
> >>misunderstood what he was saying (I had to read it
> >>twice to be sure). I think he was comparing the speed
> >>of *web* mail (like mailing from a yahoo address where
> >>you have to sign in and poke through folders and all
> >>through a web interface) to the list web interface & I
> >>can see that that would be true (list web interface
> >>faster than web mail interface).
> >
> >that's right, especially when you consider all the cross-
> >referencing i do in typical posting sessions. it's the price
> >i pay for having a 'custom' e-mail address, i suppose . . .
>
> What ARE you people talking about? I clearly enumerated
> the pros and cons of this situation and showed how it
> could be provided in e-mail.

well, excUUUUUse me!

want to point me to this 'enumeration'? i'll then let you know if
it's applicable to my current situation.

>>What ARE you people talking about? I clearly enumerated
>>the pros and cons of this situation and showed how it
>>could be provided in e-mail.
>
>well, excUUUUUse me!
>
>want to point me to this 'enumeration'? i'll then let you know
>if it's applicable to my current situation.

Sorry guys, I meant to express frustration, not insultation.
It was message #2268. I be interested to know if I missed
something.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:

> >>What ARE you people talking about? I clearly enumerated
> >>the pros and cons of this situation and showed how it
> >>could be provided in e-mail.
> >
> >well, excUUUUUse me!
> >
> >want to point me to this 'enumeration'? i'll then let you know
> >if it's applicable to my current situation.
>
> Sorry guys, I meant to express frustration, not insultation.
> It was message #2268. I be interested to know if I missed
> something.

i don't see anything substantial in that message, at least nothing
that in any way represents "clearly enumerating the pros and cons of
this situation and showing how it could be provided in e-mail."
especially considering all the cross-referencing that many of us do
on these lists.

--- In metatuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> especially considering all the cross-referencing that many of us do
> on these lists.

There is nothing to the cross-referencing that couldn't be just as easily done quoting the original. What you've done is painted yourself into a corner, and in the same breath made it more difficult for the many people that use lists in email form.

What would be nice it to try and remember that the communication is best used in the manner that reaches the broadest audience. If you continue to communicate in a web-centric manner, then you are making your message less attainable to those around the globe (yes!) who have precious time to spend online, and use it wisely (downloading email).

Besides, if it is important, you can quote it. Then we can read it, and not be chasing in circles through messages. Or put up a set of web pages, if you want to deepen the stuff. Not what a mailing list is about.

The main point is that some day this is all gonna vanish, when Yahoo wants money to support the lists, or when ... no, the absurd server-clog of the last couple of days is already here. I can't stand logging onto the groups anymore, and then we get the 5-6 repeat postings from Bob Wendell, who is stuck in some kind of posting hell.

Hail Columbia!

Cheers,
Jon

>i don't see anything substantial in that message, at least nothing
>that in any way represents "clearly enumerating the pros and cons
>of this situation and showing how it could be provided in e-mail."
>especially considering all the cross-referencing that many of us
>do on these lists.

Maybe you can explain how the web interface saves so much time,
then. :)

I'm not trying tell you how to work, but I am claiming there's
nothing the web interface does that can't be easily be done
with e-mail.

Not sure what you mean by cross-referencing. In a mailing list,
each message can be assigned a unique number...

-Carl

btw, I am for a web interface, if only because people want it
and it should be at least as good as e-mail, but also because
it can be made to do things that e-mail can't -- it's just that
yahoo's web interface doesn't do any of those.

-C.

--- In metatuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
> btw, I am for a web interface

Carl, I'll second you on that. Some people can't see the distinction between having that webface, and *where* it is coming from or how it is being done. There are lots of functions that could make a list more useable and helpful to a community like tuning, But!...

...given the choice between a web interface driven by an over-loaded, unreliable and ad-burdoned provider, and a simple, clean, and reliable plain email list, I prefer the latter.

In a heartbeat.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > especially considering all the cross-referencing that many of us
do
> > on these lists.
>
> There is nothing to the cross-referencing that couldn't be just as
easily done quoting the original. What you've done is painted
yourself into a corner, and in the same breath made it more difficult
for the many people that use lists in email form.
>
> What would be nice it to try and remember that the communication is
best used in the manner that reaches the broadest audience. If you
continue to communicate in a web-centric manner, then you are making
your message less attainable to those around the globe (yes!) who
have precious time to spend online, and use it wisely (downloading
email).
>
> Besides, if it is important, you can quote it. Then we can read it,
and not be chasing in circles through messages. Or put up a set of
web pages, if you want to deepen the stuff. Not what a mailing list
is about.
>
> The main point is that some day this is all gonna vanish, when
Yahoo wants money to support the lists, or when ... no, the absurd
server-clog of the last couple of days is already here. I can't stand
logging onto the groups anymore, and then we get the 5-6 repeat
postings from Bob Wendell, who is stuck in some kind of posting hell.
>
> Hail Columbia!
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Bob:
Chuckle...well, I've been released from "hell", since the interface
seems to be working better now. Those repeats were far from
intentional and the subject matter under discussion in those posts
seems to have evaporated, to my great relief.

I apologize for my apparent addiction to fruitless attempts at
injecting some semblance of sense into that "discussion". However,
the repeat posts resulted from the belief that the previous ones had
not gone out. A post would register in the list before another post
that I had tried to send hours or even the day before, so this
naturally made me think the earlier post had not "taken".

Please accept my abject apologies. And yes, it was "hell", one from
which I should have admittedly exited long before I did.

--- In metatuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:
> Chuckle...well, I've been released from "hell", since the interface
> seems to be working better now. Those repeats were far from
> intentional

Yes, I assumed as much, and my wordage was poor enough that you might of thought I was ticked at you - not! It seemed the subject was teeth-gnashing enough that you wouldn't sit there and post the same thing repeatedly.

Besides, that wouldn't have been logical... :)

Yahoo: the price of success.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:
> > Chuckle...well, I've been released from "hell", since the
interface
> > seems to be working better now. Those repeats were far from
> > intentional
>
> Yes, I assumed as much, and my wordage was poor enough that you
might of thought I was ticked at you - not! It seemed the subject was
teeth-gnashing enough that you wouldn't sit there and post the same
thing repeatedly.
>
> Besides, that wouldn't have been logical... :)
>
> Yahoo: the price of success.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

I'm very much enjoying your sense of humor, Jon. What a breath of
fresh air after the sulfur-laden fumes of hell!

With an uncontrollably large grin of relief,

Bob

--- In metatuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:

> Maybe you can explain how the web interface saves so much time,
> then. :)

mainly because my e-mail server is so very very slow.

and jon -- by cross referencing i simply meant going from one post to
another readily, in the course of scanning a discussion in
preparation for posting (not in the actual content of a post). i
didn't mean posting web links.

that said, i don't think i'm going to go with your suggestion of
quoting from the web instead of giving the links -- people have
complained about excessively long posts, and this would only
exacerbate that situation. i don't think my posts tend to be over-
reliant on web links though, their meaning tending to be
understandable even without web access -- and even if that's not the
case, this is the first time i'm hearing you complain about my using
web links, so i'm left wondering what other suggestions you may have
in reserve for me but have kept quiet about so far -- all rather
discomfiting given that you've had no shortage of suggestions for me
in the last few years.

--- In metatuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> and jon -- by cross referencing i simply meant going from one post
> to another readily, in the course of scanning a discussion in
> preparation for posting (not in the actual content of a post). i
> didn't mean posting web links.

Ah, language: I love it and I hate it. Yes, I did not interpret your words as you meant them...

> so i'm left wondering what other suggestions you may have
> in reserve for me but have kept quiet about so far -- all rather
> discomfiting given that you've had no shortage of suggestions for me
> in the last few years.

I'll write back anon (read: in a few days) as concert preparations are at full tilt for this weekend. I'm going to post (hopefully not at too great a length) on MMM later on in the week. Suffice to say that I've built two very large, microtonal percussion instrument/assemblages, as well as building and facilitating the instruments necessary for a performance of Tan Dun's "Concerto for Water Percussion and Orchestra". All this for a weekend concert with world-class percussionist Steve Schick (of Bang on a Can) and the San Diego Symphony (and yours truly).

Gad, another night with four hours sleep...

Cheers,
Jon