Let's clear up the confusion

Since Carl "Censorship" Lumma has permanently banned me from the ATL,
we'll have to conduct this discussion here.

Message 7053 of 7053 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message
Index
Msg #
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 7:50 pm
Subject: Re: All Dante Rosati can do is lie and lie and lie

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "xenharmonic" <xed@e...> wrote:

>Only a tiny minority of JI composers
> believe in the kinds of crackpot superstitions and mindless
> numerology purveyed by Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith
> and Paul "All Attacks, No Facts" Erlich and Dave
> "Obscurantism Raised To the Level Of A Religion" Keenan.

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

"In case anyone is confused on this point, neither I nor Paul nor Dave
are advocates of employing only rational intonation, and in fact have
come under criticism from the other direction."

Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's statement is a
misrepresentation so crass is must be counted as flatly dishonest.

FACT: Gene Ward Smith constantly uses integer ratios and coordinates
in ratio space to perform calculations on musical tunings.

FACT: Paul Erlich's superstition "harmonic entropy" claims to be
supported by James Tenney's debunked and musically meaningless metric,
which is based on integer ratios.

FACT: Erlich's 1998 Xenharmonikon pseudoscience-fest on the 22-tone
equal tuning derives 22-equal by numerology based on comparing various
equal temperaments with a pseudoscientifically cherry-picked set of
octave-reduced members of the harmonic series, which is to say integer
ratios.

FACT: Carl Lumma constantly posts about integer ratios, including TOPS
and lattices in ratios pace.

FACT: Joe Monzo's book JustMusic is riddled with ratio space lattices,
which is to say graphical representations of integer ratios and
segments of the harmonic series. Monzo constantly discusses tunings in
terms of integer ratios.

FACT: Dave Keenan has done extensive work on lattices in ratio space,
which is to say graphical representations of integer ratios and
segments of the harmonic series.

FACT: TOPS, a major recent topic of discussion by Lumma and Erlich and
Keenan and Smith, is based on approximations to integer ratios (using
the debunked pseudoscience called the Tenney metric).

FACT: Most of what these people discuss is based on integer ratios.

LOGIC: If Erlich and Smith and Keenan and Lumma and Monzo constantly
compare everything to integer ratios, and constantly use integer
ratios as a musical yardstick for measuring all other tunings, then
logic informs us that the clear implication is the integer ratios are
somehow fundamental to music.

Facts and logic. The conclusions are inevitable.

What have you got against integers? Do you deny that an octave is produced
by dividing a string length by 2 or multiplying a frequency by the same
integer? Do you deny that the octave is a component of some music? Do you
deny that dividing a string into 3 parts or multiplying a frequency by 3
produces an interval we call a fifth (12th)? Do you deny that the fifth is
an important interval in music? Now, 4 is just 2 x 2, so thats nothing new.
But divisions/multiplications by 5 gives after octave reduction) what we
call a major third. Do you say that the major third has had no part to play
in music? Is is just a coincidence that these three interval types produced
by applying the smallest integers to pitches produces the major triad, the
most basic element of western music? Of course there are infinite musics
possible using all kinds of tunings and transformations. Who ever said
otherwise? But to say that small integers have nothing to do with music is
crankism at its worst. Surely this is not your position?

Dante

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xenharmonic [mailto:xed@...]
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 6:15 PM
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [metatuning] Let's clear up the confusion
>
>
> Since Carl "Censorship" Lumma has permanently banned me from the ATL,
> we'll have to conduct this discussion here.
>
> Message 7053 of 7053 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message
> Index
> Msg #
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 7:50 pm
> Subject: Re: All Dante Rosati can do is lie and lie and lie
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "xenharmonic" <xed@e...> wrote:
>
> >Only a tiny minority of JI composers
> > believe in the kinds of crackpot superstitions and mindless
> > numerology purveyed by Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith
> > and Paul "All Attacks, No Facts" Erlich and Dave
> > "Obscurantism Raised To the Level Of A Religion" Keenan.
>
> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>
> "In case anyone is confused on this point, neither I nor Paul nor Dave
> are advocates of employing only rational intonation, and in fact have
> come under criticism from the other direction."
>
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's statement is a
> misrepresentation so crass is must be counted as flatly dishonest.
>
> FACT: Gene Ward Smith constantly uses integer ratios and coordinates
> in ratio space to perform calculations on musical tunings.
>
> FACT: Paul Erlich's superstition "harmonic entropy" claims to be
> supported by James Tenney's debunked and musically meaningless metric,
> which is based on integer ratios.
>
> FACT: Erlich's 1998 Xenharmonikon pseudoscience-fest on the 22-tone
> equal tuning derives 22-equal by numerology based on comparing various
> equal temperaments with a pseudoscientifically cherry-picked set of
> octave-reduced members of the harmonic series, which is to say integer
> ratios.
>
> FACT: Carl Lumma constantly posts about integer ratios, including TOPS
> and lattices in ratios pace.
>
> FACT: Joe Monzo's book JustMusic is riddled with ratio space lattices,
> which is to say graphical representations of integer ratios and
> segments of the harmonic series. Monzo constantly discusses tunings in
> terms of integer ratios.
>
> FACT: Dave Keenan has done extensive work on lattices in ratio space,
> which is to say graphical representations of integer ratios and
> segments of the harmonic series.
>
> FACT: TOPS, a major recent topic of discussion by Lumma and Erlich and
> Keenan and Smith, is based on approximations to integer ratios (using
> the debunked pseudoscience called the Tenney metric).
>
> FACT: Most of what these people discuss is based on integer ratios.
>
> LOGIC: If Erlich and Smith and Keenan and Lumma and Monzo constantly
> compare everything to integer ratios, and constantly use integer
> ratios as a musical yardstick for measuring all other tunings, then
> logic informs us that the clear implication is the integer ratios are
> somehow fundamental to music.
>
> Facts and logic. The conclusions are inevitable.
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

>Since Carl "Censorship" Lumma has permanently banned me from
>the ATL, we'll have to conduct this discussion here.

Like most of Brian's claims, this one is also false.

-Carl

Not content to merely lie about the harmonic series and
similar paranoid obfuscatia, Carl "Shameful Liar" Lumma
has disgraced himself yet again by telling yet another
lie. Let's have a look...

>>Since Carl "Censorship" Lumma has permanently banned
>>me from the ATL, we'll have to conduct this discussion
>>here.
>
> Like most of Brian's claims, this one is also false.

As always, let's evaluate this with logic and documented
facts.

Documented Fact #1: Carl "Shameful Liar" Lumma has made
a public record of telling hurtful, deceitful lies over
and over.

Documented Fact #2: Carl "Can't take what he dishes out"
Lumma is a known character assasin.

Documented Fact #3: Carl "All Talk, No Music" Lumma hasn't
made a single microtonal CD. And that CD was a genuine
failure.

With these documented facts in mind, any reasonable
person would have to ask himself: What shed of evidence is
there that Carl "Censorship" Lumma hasn't banned Brian
McLaren from the Alternate Lying List? C'mon Carl, if what
you say is true, show us one notarized shred of proof that
you didn't disgrace yourself by banning Brian McLaren from
the Alterate Lying List.

But Carl "Censorship" Lumma hasn't and won't do that.
Why? Because there isn't even a minutia of RFID-tagged
evidence that he didn't ban Brian McLaren from the
Alternate Wanking List, and Carl "Blubbering Sociopath"
Lumma knows it. And let's not forget, Carl "All talk no
action" Lumma hasn't produced a single microtonal CD.
Think about that next time you're brushing your teeth.

The Alternate Wanking List is a factory that produces
lies and pseudoscientific mistruths by the wagonload.
Nevertheless, it's a disgusting act of censorship to be
banned from it, whether you're actually banned or not.
Think about that hard enough and blood'll start shootin'
out your nose.

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:
> Not content to merely lie about the harmonic series and
> similar paranoid obfuscatia, Carl "Shameful Liar" Lumma
> has disgraced himself yet again by telling yet another
> lie. Let's have a look...

It is precisely that unremitting stream of lies, character assassinations and splitting of infinitives that led to this mailing list being debunked. What evidence do you have to disprove the notion that metatuning has been debunked? Where are the articles in peer-reviewed journals that prove the mailing lists it purports to discuss even exist? For that matter, can you prove that you haven't been banned from metatuning? Can you prove that I exist? Where is the hard evidence that I exist?

> As always, let's evaluate this with logic and documented
> facts.

Another blatant lie. It is precisely the censoring of so-called "logic" and "documented facts" by the so-called "moderators" of the
Alternative Lying so-called "List" that led me to ban every one of them from so-called "posting" to metatuning. And, as evidence of my own so-called "adherence" to sound logical principles I have now so-called "banned" myself from posting to so-called "metatuning". Any so-called "evidence" to the contrary, including this so-called "message", is simply a so-called "figment" of your overactive so-called "imagination". What is the objectively verifiable evidence that proves that I posted this message? Again, where is the hard evidence that I exist? Have I ever provided any proof that I exist?

> With these documented facts in mind, any reasonable
> person would have to ask himself: What shed of evidence is
> there that Carl "Censorship" Lumma hasn't banned Brian
> McLaren from the Alternate Lying List? C'mon Carl, if what
> you say is true, show us one notarized shred of proof that
> you didn't disgrace yourself by banning Brian McLaren from
> the Alterate Lying List.

So let us apply common sense and the test of reality to Carl Lumma's so-called "post".

Does a reasonable person spend his life submitting so-called "messages" to some wacky so-called "mailing list" he read on the internet just because somebody made the claim that it exists without offering a shred of so-caleld "proof" (which has been discredited anyway)? Where are the tablets of stone handed down by significant deities stating that there is even an Alternative Logic List to ban Brian McLaren from?

> The Alternate Wanking List is a factory that produces
> lies and pseudoscientific mistruths by the wagonload.
> Nevertheless, it's a disgusting act of censorship to be
> banned from it, whether you're actually banned or not.
> Think about that hard enough and blood'll start shootin'
> out your nose.

The continuing stream of lies, pseudoscientific mistruths, censorship, splitting of infinitives and loading of wagons is precisely what prevents anybody from voting with their feet, and moving over to the "Alternative Alternative Walking List" (/tuning_uncensored/).

What are the issue numbers and the volume numbers and the page numbers of the peer-reviwed journal articles of listening experiments which prove that the AAWL is genuinely uncensored? Can anybody provide objectively verifiable facts and logic to prove that the AAWL even exits? What is the hard objectively verifiable evidence that Carl Lumma has not been banned from metetuning? What is the hard objectively verifiable evidence that anybody is reading this? What is the hard objectively verifiable evidence that I exist?

Graham

> Can anybody provide
> objectively verifiable facts and logic to prove that the AAWL even
> exits? What is the hard objectively verifiable evidence that Carl
Lumma
> has not been banned from metetuning? What is the hard objectively
> verifiable evidence that anybody is reading this? What is the hard
> objectively verifiable evidence that I exist?
>

I think, therefore I spam.