The old badger game

With an apparently infinite amount of free time
on his hands, Carl Lumma wrote:

Message 7071 of 7075 | Previous | Next
Msg #
From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...>
Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:56 pm
Subject: Re: The junior senator from Wisconsin

>Also, I was made a moderator late last year. Where
>was Brian prior to that? Why was he not writing in
>to enlighten us?

Because I was composing microtonal music. Three days
ago I composed a piece of microtonal music in 53 limit
just intonation. How many pieces of microtonal music
did you compose three days ago, Carl Lumma?

Yesterday I composed a piece of microtonal music in
59 limit just intonation. How many pieces of microtonal
music did you composer yesterday, Carl Lumma?

If you had spent the last 7 years composing microtonal
music and doing scholarship, Carl Lumma, you might
actually know something about microtonality. Instead
you have wasted the last 7 years "read[ing] everything
on here" and as a result you are as pervasively
uninformed about microtonal music and psychoacoustics
and acoustics and musicology and psychomusicology and
music history and mathematics and the scientific
method as your spirit guides, Paul "All Attacks, No
Facts" Erlich and Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
Smith.

>Brian accused me in a private e-mail of publicly
>accusing him of committing a felony. I asked him what
>claim he was referring to, but he didn't answer.
>Maybe asking him in public will produce better results.
>-Carl

As always, I have the documented facts to support my
statement. Notice that each time someone asks me for
proof, I provide it. Notice that each time Carl Lumma
makes a statement and someone asks him for proof,
he provides no proof whatever.

Before we continue any further, Carl Lumma,
you are going to have prove at least _some_ of
what of you say before we believe A*N*Y of what
you say.

Let's start with Carl Lumma's claim:

"...Most of what mclaren says is wrong."

Provide proof, Carl Lumma. Start with my posts to
the metatuning and the crazy_music groups. I have
provided well over 40 references from the peer-
reviewed scientific literature so far. Provide proof
that each of these 40 references is wrong. Using
the rule of 4, you must provide us with at least
160 references from the peer-reviewed scientific
literature directly and specifically contradicting
each of the references I h ave cited.

Next, you can move on to the statements I have
made in my posts. You must provide proof that
at least 75% of the statements I have made
are wrong. We want hard evidence, Carl Lumma,
not hand-waving, not smoke and mirrors, not
vague claims by somebody else that "mclaren
is an imbecile" accompanied by Beavis-and-
Butthead-style laughter. We want proof. Not
rumors. Not guesses. Not McCarthy-style
character assassination, of which you seem
to be so fond. We want proof that at least
75% of the statements I have made in the
last ten days are false.

Next, Carl Lumma, after you have provided us
with the mountain of proof and the fifty-foot-
tall stack of references showing that the
references in my recent posts (which I have
taken from the peer-reviewed scientific
literature) are incorrect, you can move on
to the books I've written. First, you can
provide proof that each of the references
in the large tuning and temperament bibliography
I compiled is incorrect. You can find that
bibliography at the Huyghens-Fokker website.
We want facts, not speculations, so be
prepared to provide at least 5000 references
from the music history and psychoacoustic
and musicological literature to prove your
claim that "most of what mclaren says is
wrong."

If your claim is true, then most of the
references in the large bibliography on
tuning and temperament should be specious,
and it should be easy for you to prove it.

So prove what you said, Carl Lumma. Show
us the evidence. Let us see it.

Next, you can move on to the contents of
my books. Both my books put together
run to somewhat over 300,000 words. To
convince us that "most of what mclaren
says is wrong," you must now provide
detailed explanations along with citations
and references showing that at least 75%
of what I wrote is wrong.

Unless you prove at least some of
what you have said, Carl Lumma, why
should we believ any of what you have
said?

------

The Carl Lumma method is the old badger
game used by Stalnist interrogators. A
squad of interrogators barked questions
at the arrestee so fast he couldn't
answer them. Then the interrogators
would shout "Look! Look! The vile
rat can't answer our questions! He
must have something to hide!" This
was then taken as proof that the
accused Soviet citizen was guilty in
a Stalinist show trial.

I'm not going to play that game, Carl
Lumma. So before we proceed any further,
provide us with the proof that what you
say is true. If you are correct and
"most of what mclaren says is wrong,"
then you should be able to prove it.

Prove it.

Show us the evidence.

Where is it? Let us see the proof.
---------
--mclaren

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

> Because I was composing microtonal music. Three days
> ago I composed a piece of microtonal music in 53 limit
> just intonation. How many pieces of microtonal music
> did you compose three days ago, Carl Lumma?
>
> Yesterday I composed a piece of microtonal music in
> 59 limit just intonation. How many pieces of microtonal
> music did you composer yesterday, Carl Lumma?

Quantity is not the same as quality.

> Next, you can move on to the contents of
> my books. Both my books put together
> run to somewhat over 300,000 words.

Your books do not seem to be readily available. There is a Brian
McLaren who writes books whom we may readily find on Amazon, but he
isn't you:

McLaren, pastor and author of The Church on the Other Side, proposes
that postmodernism is the road to take in order to move on from the
current stalemate between conservative evangelical and liberal
Christians. His books are part of his activist work to
promote "innovation, entrepreneurial leadership and a desire to be on
the leading edge of ministry." Here he has adopted the fictional tale
of an earnest, very conservative pastor who has become so burned out
in his church life that he is planning to quit the pastorate.
Instead, he makes friends with his daughter's science teacher, who
leads him to an enthusiastic embracing of postmodernism as applied to
the Christian message.

Yahoo sucks.

> With an apparently infinite amount of free time
> on his hands, Carl Lumma wrote:

...only a fraction the number of characters you've
been writing in this thread.

> >Also, I was made a moderator late last year. Where
> >was Brian prior to that? Why was he not writing in
> >to enlighten us?
>
> Because I was composing microtonal music.

Great. If you're so busy doing that, why bother
complaining you've been banned?

> >Brian accused me in a private e-mail of publicly
> >accusing him of committing a felony. I asked him what
> >claim he was referring to, but he didn't answer.
> >Maybe asking him in public will produce better results.
> >-Carl
//
> Before we continue any further, Carl Lumma,
> you are going to have prove at least _some_ of
> what of you say before we believe A*N*Y of what
> you say.
>
> Let's start with Carl Lumma's claim:
>
> "...Most of what mclaren says is wrong."

It is not a felony to be wrong.

> Provide proof, Carl Lumma. Start with my posts to
> the metatuning and the crazy_music groups. I have
> provided well over 40 references from the peer-
> reviewed scientific literature so far. Provide proof
> that each of these 40 references is wrong. Using
> the rule of 4, you must provide us with at least
> 160 references from the peer-reviewed scientific
> literature directly and specifically contradicting
> each of the references I have cited.

I was referring to your original material, not the
material you cite.

> Next, you can move on to the statements I have
> made in my posts. You must provide proof that
> at least 75% of the statements I have made
> are wrong.

You want me to review at least 75% of your articles
on a threat?

// We want proof that at least
> 75% of the statements I have made in the
> last ten days are false.

Oh, only in the last 10 days. Well maybe if you
ask nice, I'll do you the professional courtesy
of reviewing your statements.

> Unless you prove at least some of
> what you have said, Carl Lumma, why
> should we believ any of what you have
> said?

Why should I care if you believe what I say?

> I'm not going to play that game, Carl
> Lumma.

Ok, so don't play.

> So before we proceed any further,
> provide us with the proof that what you
> say is true. If you are correct and
> "most of what mclaren says is wrong,"
> then you should be able to prove it.

I wasn't denying that I accused you of a felony, I
was asking you what it was.

-Carl