Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning The junior senator from Wisconsin

Some of you may remember Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Elected as a junior senator from Wisconsin in 1946, McCarthy
was overwhelmingly voted "worst senator" by the Washington
Press Corps in 1949. He accomplished essentially nothing
in his first 3 years in the U.S. senate.

In a desperate bid to find a way to cover up his lack of
accomplishments, McCarthy hit on the anti-communist witch
hunt.

Senator McCarthy's specialty was the sweeping innuendo.
Make a big insinuation with vast implications, provide no proof,
move on to another broad innuendo before the victim could recover.
Put words in the victim's mouth. Use guilt by assocation. The
apparent hope was that the victims would get so tangled up
in all the sweeping misrepresentations that they'd drown
and be unable to answer (in large part because Senator McCarthy
tried to make sure there weren't any actual testable facts in his
insinuations that anyone could rebut).

Like Senator Joseph McCarthy, Carl Lumma has accomplished
nothing of note in the field of microtonality. He has produced no
microtonal CDs worth mentioning, no scholarship of any note,
nothing anyone can point to as a serious accomplishment.

In a desperate bid to cover up his own lack of accomplishment,
Carl Lumma has now hit on something -- smear tactics. Like
Senator Joseph McCarthy, Carl Lumma has abandoned testable
facts and he has lowered himself to mere innuendo and insinuation:

Message 7058 of 7060 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message Index
Msg #
From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...>
Date: Sat April 10, 2004 2:31 am
Subject: Carl Lumma spouts more lies

>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...

When did I ever publicly identify Carl Lumma as someone
who has "lie[d] about the harmonic seres"?

Show me my words, Carl -- let us all see where I E*V*E*R
claimed Carl Lumma "lie[s] about the harmonic series."

Carl Lumma continues with his Senator-Joseph-McCarthy-
style innuendos and distortions by trying to ridicule my use of
facts and logic:

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

Let's do that, Carl.

Let's evaluate your innuendos using logic and documented
facts. If your innuendos are anything but Joseph-McCarthy-
style smear tactics, then you should have some hard facts to
back up your insinuations.

Show 'em to us. Show me in my own words where I have
claimed that you "lied about the harmonic series."

You can't show me any place I said that because I never
have -- your entire post is a distortion filled with misleading
innuendo, and you know it.

Show me in my own words where I have made any post
publicly describing you as "Carl `Shameful Liar' Lumma."

You can't show me any post where I called you "Carl
`Shameful Liar' Lumma" because you're just making
insinuations, using ridicule .

In the tradition of Senator Joseph McCarthy, once
again Carl Lumma continues putting words in my mouth that
I never said:

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

If you continue with distortions and innuendos like
this post, you _will_ get a reputation for character assassination.
Oddly enough, if you persist with these kinds of smear
tactics against me, you will actually become most of things
I never made a post saying you are. If you continue to put
words in my words I never posted, you _will_ make a liar and a
character assassin of yourself. That's oddly ironic, Carl.
By trying to avoid a situation, you are actually creating the
conditions for it. Shades of "Appointment In Samara," eh?

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

I am guessing that this particular innuendo is a feeble
attempt to capitalize on my trivial flub about Dante
Rosati's alleged CD. Here's the backstory -- at the December
2001 MicroFest in El Paso, someone had a microtonal CD
by somebody called "Sri Swifty." I gave it a listen. Didn't
impress me.

Since I have no idea who the hell "Sri Swifty" is, I asked
someone -- they told me it was Dante Rosati. Well, they
gave me bad info. Turns out "Sri Swifty" is Patrick Pagano.

So that's the big story. Great, Carl, I'm human and I'm
fallible and I made one tiny mistake -- beliving what someone
else told me at the 2001 MicroFest in El Paso.

Note well that this trivial misapprehension on my part does
not change the substantive truth of my assertion that Dante
Rosati has released no microtonal music on CD of any
significnace.

I stand corrected -- isntead of producing one crappy-
sounding CD of microtonal music, Dante Rosati produced
NO microtonal CDs at all...by his own admission.

So what we have got here is a guy who tries to defend
himself against the charge that he has produced very
little of musical value by claiming that, no, mclaren is
wrong, he actually produced no music at all.

That's a peculiar defense, isn't it?

Apparently I'm guilty of giving Dante Rosati *more
credit* than he deserves. Seems I was * too generous*
in my estimation of Dante Rosati's so-called contributions
to microtonality.

Instead of making only a microscopic musical contribution,
Dante Rosati wants it known that he has made no musical
contribution at all to microtonality on CD.

Great, Carl. THIS is the best you can come up with?

I made the mistake of being too generous by half about
Dante Rosati...?

Good luck with that criticism of me. Yeah -- I'm too
generous and too kind-hearted about Dante Rosati,
so I must be ridiculed and smeared in public.

Carl Lumma continues putting words in my mouth
in the very best tradition of Senator Joseph McCarthy:

>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.

In this particular iosinuation, Carl, you seem to imply that
I use the faulty argument of requiring proof that something
hasn't happened. Now let's apply some logic -- it's usually
impossible to prove that something _didn't_ happen out in the
great big real wide world.

Show me the proof in my own words that I have ever
required someone to prove that some vague nebulous
thing "never happened." That's a basic mistake because
it's usually logically impossible. (In a lab you can
sometimes prove something probably didn't happen --
but even then it's damn hard to actually *prove* it.)

What I have instead demanded is proof that someone
didn't make some specific post that they damn well did
make. Here's the bottom line, kiddies -- on the internet,
YOU OWN YOUR WORDS.

If you posted it, you can't wriggle out of it. If you
made the claim in public, then you have to take the
responsibility for saying those things in public.

You can't wriggle out of it by telling the lie "I never
said that! I never said any such thing!" as Jonathan
Szanto has. You can't wriggle out of what you said
in public by trying to use misleading innuendo, as
Carl Lumma is doing right now.

YOU OWN YOUR WORDS.

People on these public forums think they can tell lies
in public ("[mclaren is] an imbecile"- Gene Ward Smith)
and then move on and nobody will remember or pay
attention or care.

People on these public forum think they can indulge
in hysterical name-calling ('you baboon" - Dante
Rosati) and then blithely walk away and never have
to take responsibility for that kind of public name-
calling.

Well, here's a news flash for you, ladies and gents --
YOU OWN YOUR WORDS. If you tell repeated
lies in public, I will call you on it.

And all Carl Lumma's attempts at ridicule won't
cover your asses.

Here's something hot off the AP wire -- YOU OWN
YOUR WORDS. If you indulged in empty name-
calling as a debate tactic on these forums, I will
call you on it.

And all Graham Breed's efforts at ridicule will
save from having to take responsibility for what
you said.

Carl Lumma continues his misleading insinuations:

>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.

Show me in my own words where I ever called you
"Carl `Blubbering Sociopath' Lumma."

You keep making these Joseph-McCarthy-style
innuedos, but I don't see any proof to back 'em up.
It's the old Senator Joseph McCarthy game...make
an insinuation so vague and so damning that the
victim can't fight back because it's all just
smoke and mirrors.

>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.

History shows that superstitions can only be sustained
by censorship and lies. In the former Soviet Union,
Lysenkoism was maintained only by censoring scientists
who spoke out against it. Only Stalinist purges and
official lies succeeded in making Lysenkoism last
for any length of time as a scientific doctrine.

We can see what happens to superstitions in an
Jeffersonian democracy by taking a look at the cold
fusion imbroglio. That superstition lasted about 3
weeks. Then it sank like a rock.

Why?

Because open debate rapidly destroys the credibility
of superstitions. Only censorship and a campaign of lies
can keep superstitions in place and make 'em seem
credible.

The Alternative Wanking list is based on provably
false superstitions about music and acoustics and
psychoacoustics and musical history and ethno-
musicology.

People like me, who apply critical thinking and
the test of reality to the claims people make on
these forums, must be publicly identified people
to be censored on and banned. The reason for
publicly indentifying people like me as individuals
who mus tbe censored and banned is simple. It's
obvious. It's as plain as day. People like me, who
apply critical thinking, would instigate free and
open debate on the ATL.

And guess what?

In a free and open debate onthe ATL, pseudoscientific
superstitions like "harmonic entropy" and "TOPS" would
collapse in a New York minute.

-----------
Carl Lumma has done a mediocre job of using innuedo
to try to smear me in the very best Paul Erlich/Joseph McCarthy
style.

Make sweeping charges...provide no proof.

Make vast dark insinuations...then move on before the
victim has a chance to rebut 'em.

Put words in another person's mouth...then hit 'em with
another straw man argument until they're punch-drunk.

The old whack-a-mole game. Spew so many innuedos
and insinuations the other person keeps trying to play
whack-a-mole and can't keep up.

As everyone can clearly see by now, Carl Lumma's latest
post is nothing but a giant example of the classic logical
fallacy of the "straw man argument." In this discredited
and faulty debate tactic, a person (Carl Lumma) cynically
puts misleading words in his opponent's mouth and
distorts and caricatures his opponent's position. Fine
examples of this discredited and logically fallacious
"straw man argument" can be found in the recent
rhetorical calisthenics of the Bush administration --
"Opponents of the Iraq war wanted to keep Saddam's
torture chambers open for business." No they didn't,
and there's no evidence that anyone who opposed the
war in Iraq ever approved of Saddam's torture cahmbers.
But the discredited and logically bankrupt straw man
argument wants you to ignore the facts and instead
concentrate only on the misleading caricature.

Likewise, when Carl Lumma indulges in discredited
straw man arguments against me, Carl wants you to
ignore the fact that I never said any of the things Carl
implies I said -- instead, Carl wants you to concentrate
only on his misleading caricature of me.

Well, guess what, kiddies?

The Bush administration's discredited straw man
argument against people who opposed the Iraq war
isn't working because opponents of the war keep
pointing to all the brave servicemen and women
who keep getting shot and mutilated and blown
apart and burned alive by Iraqi insurgents, and
the hard facts coming out of Riaq every day now
are starting to overwhelm the Bush administration's
phoney straw man argument. Polls seem to show
public sentiment moving against involvement in
Iraq.

In the same way, the facts are beginning to
overwhelm Carl Lumma's phoney straw man
argument against me. It is a documented
fact that people have crawled out of the
woodwork to indulged in hysterical name-
calling aimed at me, and these same people
have offered no logical arguments and no
facts to insupport their insupportable
claims about microtonality. Eventually,
the facts add up and everyone realizes
what's going on...regardless of Carl Lumma's
innuendos and insinuations about me.

But you made one big mistake, Carl. Among all the
insinuations and all the innuedo you threw at me, you
did make one factual claim that can be tested.

You claimed I'm not censored and banned from the
ATL.

Let's take a look at Carl Lumma's own words and
see about that:

[From the Alternative Lying List]
Message 51672 of 53097 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message Index
Msg #

From: Carl Lumma <ekin@l... <mailto:ekin@l...>>
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 1:35 pm
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: moderator policies

(..)
Quoted below is the policy that, after much carful [sic] thought, I have
adopted. I think each moderator should be free to some extent to
implement his or her own policy. But I think the following is a very
good policy both for what it is, and what it isn't...

(..)
>Posters who repeatedly have me worrying about having to delete their
>posts are subject to moderation and/or removal from the list. With
>the understanding that the policy will not be actioned unless the
>violation is egregious, as Brian McLaren's was, and as Peter's is
>becoming. -- Carl Lumma

You tell me, ladies and gentlemen.
What do you conclude based on Carl Lumma's own words from
the public record?
Carl Lumma hasn't actually quoted any of MY words in his
rambling attempt to emulate Senator Joseph McCarthy because
if Carl actually quoted what I said, his innuendos and insinuations
would fall apart -- and he damn well knows it.
But now I have actually quoted your own words, Carl.
You tell me:
When I get publicly identified on the ATL as the
very epitome and paragon of the kind of who must be
banned and censored on first principles -- am I not
banned from the Alternative Wanking List? Have I not
been publicly identified as persona non grata? Am I
not someone publicly identified as a person who will
be censored on sight and banned the moment I appear
in the ATL?

What do we conclude from the evidence of Carl Lumma's
own words, ladies and gentlemen?
----------
--mclaren

The junior senator from Wisconsin

🔗xenharmonic <xed@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>