Graham Breed gives us the fully Monty

Graham Breed has now shown us who he really is.

He's given us the Full Monty.

Which is to say that Graham Breed is now talking in
code phrases...just as Senator McCarthy spoke in code
phrases back in the 1950s:

MCCARTHY'S CODE PHRASE "There is a fifth column in this country
working against America."
PLAIN ENGLISH TRANSLATION: "I have political opponents."

MCCARTHY'S CODE PHRASE: "These people are fellow travellers"
PLAIN ENGLISH TRANSLATION "I'm going to smear anyone who
refuses to support my re-election"

MCCARTHY'S CODE PHRASE: "There are subversive elements within
our very government"
PLAIN ENGLISH TRANSLATION: "Some of these people believe in
upholding the Bill of Rights."
================

It is therefore necessary to decrypt Graham Breed's code phrases
and turn 'em into plain english in order get the plaintext:

Message 7059 of 7060 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ]
Msg #
From: Graham Breed <graham@m...>

GRAHAM BREED'S CODE PHRASE:
>It is precisely that unremitting stream of lies, character
>assassinations and splitting of infinitives that led to this mailing
>list being debunked.

PLAIN ENGLISH TRANSLATION:
"I don't have any facts and logic to rebut mclaren's arguments
and facts, so I'm going to resort to vague insuations about
mclaren with no facts to back 'em up." -- Graham Breed
------------------------

GRAHAM BREED'S CODE PHRASE:
>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?

PLAIN ENGLISH TRANSLATION:
"I'm scared spitless of an open debate about the alleged connection
of the harmonic series and small integer ratios with Western music,
because if I try to face mclaren in an open debate I'll get my ass
whipped as badly as Dante Rosati has. So instead I'm going to
make ridiculous assertions and try to put 'em in mclaren's mouth
to avoid having to debate on the issues." -- Graham Breed

------------------------

GRAHAM BREED'S CODE PHRASE:
>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".

PLAIN ENGLISH TRANSLATION;
"It really pisses me off when mclaren points out that a lot of what
passes of knowledge on these microtonal forums isn't. But I have
no facts and no logic to rebut mclaren's arguments, so all I can
do is try to create a cartoonish caricature of mclaren in the hope
that no will notice I'm not offering a rational argument." -- Graham Breed
------------------------

GRAHAM BREED'S CODE PHRASE:
>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?

PLAIN ENGLISH TRANSLATION:
"I soil myself with fear at the prospect of confronting the hard
evidence about JI from psychoacoustics and acoustics and
ethnomusicology, because I know the evidence is overwhelmingly
against me. So instead I'll try to make up a load of gobbledygook and
stuff it into mclaren's mouth so no one will notice I'm not actually
making a case for JI as it is discussed on these forums." -- Graham Breed
------------------------

GRAHAM BREED'S CODE PHRASE:
>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-called "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?

PLAIN ENGLISH TRANSLATION:
"I'm going to make the outlandish claim that mailing lists don't
exist, and that we must require proof in forms of `tablets of stone
handed down by significant deities' and then I'm going to put this
crazy nonsense in mclaren's mouth.
"I'm going to do this because if I try to go up against mclaren
straight on, he'll slice me to ribbons by pointing out the logical
fallacies in my arguments. So instead I'll try some ridicule, rather
than a sensible argument. Maybe it'll work...maybe the members of the
meta_tuning forum are so stupid they won't notice what I'm trying to
get away with." -- Graham Breed
------------------------

GRAHAM BREED'S CODE PHRASE:
>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?

PLAIN ENGLISH TRANSLATION:
"I'm so cynical and so manipulative that I think I can get away with
putting words in mclaren's mouth and no one will notice. I have such
contempt for the people on this list that I'resure I can bamboozle 'em
all into accepting this cartoonish caricature as a substanative
contribution, instead of the McCarthy-style smear tactic it is. After
all, since the ATL uses the language of science and the outward
trappings of science but does not use the actual methods of science,
it would be fatal to let mclaren point this out. So *anyone* asking
for peer-reviewed scientific journal articles as proof of _any_
claim HAS to be publicly ridiculed.
"The true scientific method must be sneered at and denigrated because
it'd debunk TOPS and Harmonic Entropy and vals and wedgies
in a hot minute. And I'd look like a damn fool for getting suckered in
by all that musically meaningless numerological gibberish for all
those years. Pseudoscience is fine for me. Asking for proof that a
claim is true is repugnant to me. Whenever I see a sign of rational
argumentation and critical thinking, it bugs me so badly I just have
to stoop to McCarthy-style smear tactics like this." -- Graham Breed

------------
--mclaren