Re: [MMM] Looking for tuning application

> > >> It needn't be that complicated.
> > >
> > >Yeah, right. I have an idea: why don't you guys start a
> > >new thread, since this no longer bears *any* relation to
> > >my original question? That would be great...
> > >
> > >Cheers,
> > >Jon
> >
> > Get up on the wrong side of bed again, Jon?
> >
> > -Carl
>
> I'm not caught up yet, but it seems like Jon probably just
> wants to avoid spending unnecessary time reading tuning list
> posts, so this looked like a perfectly reasonable request.

Some folks don't like it when you change thread names, and
have asked that it be done *less*. Meanwhile Jon's *language*
("yeah right" "I have an idea" "that would be great") was
far from benevolent, even if his intentions were benevolent.
It seemed to me a very caustic "hello" to the relatively quiet
Graham, who had just stopped by to make a very nice
contribution to the thread.

> I was sick when the new moderators made their ascent.

Oh, it was splendorous. You must catch it in syndication.

> Somehow, we now have censorship on this list, and those
> doing the censorship are . . . leading by example? NOT!

My example as a moderator stands on its own, and has nothing
to do with my behavior as a poster.

> Yuck, yuck yuck, yuck yuck. Jon, you have my sympathies,

Paul, why not read up on what I wrote about moderation
during your illness? It looks like you're a prime candidate
for the job (which I am soon to give up). You'll have plenty
of chance to hone your passive-agressive, bleeding heart
into a powerful political habit.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> Paul, why not read up on what I wrote about moderation
> during your illness? It looks like you're a prime candidate
> for the job (which I am soon to give up). You'll have plenty
> of chance to hone your passive-agressive, bleeding heart
> into a powerful political habit.

If Paul apologizes to Sault maybe we can get him back and have Paul
do the moderating. :)

Hello Carl,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> Some folks don't like it when you change thread names, and
> have asked that it be done *less*.

I'm not some folks, and I was the one who made the original post. Is it not cool for me to ask for a header change? I guess it isn't, but I was hoping.

> Meanwhile Jon's *language*

So I have to issue a second public apology? I don't think so.

> It seemed to me a very caustic "hello" to the relatively quiet
> Graham, who had just stopped by to make a very nice
> contribution to the thread.

Then you mis-read it, Carl. I like Graham, but the contribution had nothing to do with what I was looking for. As positive as it might have seemed, it dilutes the thread's intent with noise in the signal. I guess it all boils down to reading an original post and trying to be as direct as possible in an answer. As *well* as trying to frame one's questions as clearly as one can.

> Oh, it was splendorous. You must catch it in syndication.

Caustic.

> You'll have plenty
> of chance to hone your passive-agressive, bleeding heart
> into a powerful political habit.

Well, there's no chance of confusing the above statement with a benign attitude.

Cheers,
Jon

> > Some folks don't like it when you change thread names, and
> > have asked that it be done *less*.
>
> I'm not some folks, and I was the one who made the original
>post.

And you're not necessarily the only one following the thread.
He who starts a thread does not "own" it. He might, on the
other hand, be flattered that his post has spawned something
useful to others even when it goes somewhere he did not
intend.

> > Meanwhile Jon's *language*
>
> So I have to issue a second public apology? I don't think so.

I didn't say that.

-Carl

C,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> And you're not necessarily the only one following the thread.
> He who starts a thread does not "own" it. He might, on the
> other hand, be flattered that his post has spawned something
> useful to others even when it goes somewhere he did not
> intend.

Pardon me for asking a straight-forward question and not wanting to spend my time on areas that aren't even close to what I was looking for. Life is full (and certainly busy right now), and I always appreciate when topics are focused. I VERY MUCH value the exploratory manner of sharing and discovering on these lists, but that is why new topic areas could improve the s/n a lot by staying on-topic, or 'spawning' new threads.

Besides, if I was flattered about something that had nothing to do with my original thrust, it would seem pretty egotistic. But I sometimes misunderstand just what is, and what isn't, egotistic.

> > So I have to issue a second public apology? I don't think so.
>
> I didn't say that.

Then why bring up, for a second time, the fact that you found my request unctuous? Not for the first time, I fail to understand...

Cheers,
Jon

>Pardon me for asking a straight-forward question and not
>wanting to spend my time on areas that aren't even close
>to what I was looking for. Life is full (and certainly
>busy right now), and I always appreciate when topics are
>focused. I VERY MUCH value the exploratory manner of sharing
>and discovering on these lists, but that is why new topic
>areas could improve the s/n a lot by staying on-topic, or
>'spawning' new threads.

Ok. In the future I will try to change subjects when replying
to a thread which has chaged course since you've been involved.

> > > So I have to issue a second public apology? I don't think so.
> >
> > I didn't say that.
>
> Then why bring up, for a second time, the fact that you found
> my request unctuous?

I was explaining how read your original post.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > >> It needn't be that complicated.
> > > >
> > > >Yeah, right. I have an idea: why don't you guys start a
> > > >new thread, since this no longer bears *any* relation to
> > > >my original question? That would be great...
> > > >
> > > >Cheers,
> > > >Jon
> > >
> > > Get up on the wrong side of bed again, Jon?
> > >
> > > -Carl
> >
> > I'm not caught up yet, but it seems like Jon probably just
> > wants to avoid spending unnecessary time reading tuning list
> > posts, so this looked like a perfectly reasonable request.
>
> Some folks don't like it when you change thread names, and
> have asked that it be done *less*. Meanwhile Jon's *language*
> ("yeah right" "I have an idea" "that would be great") was
> far from benevolent, even if his intentions were benevolent.
> It seemed to me a very caustic "hello" to the relatively quiet
> Graham, who had just stopped by to make a very nice
> contribution to the thread.

For some reason, I read it in a particular way at that moment. I
might have read it differently at a different moment. It was posted
without thought, which is part of the reason I deleted it.

> > Yuck, yuck yuck, yuck yuck. Jon, you have my sympathies,
>
> Paul, why not read up on what I wrote about moderation
> during your illness? It looks like you're a prime candidate
> for the job (which I am soon to give up). You'll have plenty
> of chance to hone your passive-agressive, bleeding heart
> into a powerful political habit.

No thanks.

> > > > >> It needn't be that complicated.
> > > > >
> > > > >Yeah, right. I have an idea: why don't you guys start a
> > > > >new thread, since this no longer bears *any* relation to
> > > > >my original question? That would be great...
> > > > >
> > > > >Cheers,
> > > > >Jon
> > > >
> > > > Get up on the wrong side of bed again, Jon?
> > > >
> > > > -Carl
> > >
> > > I'm not caught up yet, but it seems like Jon probably just
> > > wants to avoid spending unnecessary time reading tuning list
> > > posts, so this looked like a perfectly reasonable request.
> >
> > Some folks don't like it when you change thread names, and
> > have asked that it be done *less*. Meanwhile Jon's *language*
> > ("yeah right" "I have an idea" "that would be great") was
> > far from benevolent, even if his intentions were benevolent.
> > It seemed to me a very caustic "hello" to the relatively
> > quiet Graham, who had just stopped by to make a very nice
> > contribution to the thread.
>
> For some reason, I read it in a particular way at that moment.

Well for what it's worth, what I wrote (about getting out of
bed) was clearly a taunt, and I knew it, and it was wrong
of me to post it. I'd delete it but I always feel a little
guilty about deleting history.

> No thanks.

Well I'll post an advert. I know it's a slippery slope, but I
want to at least *try* to see where the Top thing goes in the
next few weeks. Maybe I'll stay on tuning-math.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> > Paul, why not read up on what I wrote about moderation
> > during your illness? It looks like you're a prime candidate
> > for the job (which I am soon to give up). You'll have plenty
> > of chance to hone your passive-agressive, bleeding heart
> > into a powerful political habit.
>
> If Paul apologizes to Sault maybe we can get him back and have Paul
> do the moderating. :)

what happened to Sault anyway?
did he just disappear quietly, or did i miss a grand exit?

-monz

monz wrote:

> what happened to Sault anyway? > did he just disappear quietly, or did i miss a grand exit?

He made an exit on metatuning, one line thing, after some intense ranting. 21st December if you want to check.

Graham