Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning Aaron K. Johnson makes some good points, but falls into errors

Aaron K. Johnson makes some solid points in a recent
message, but fell into some serious logical errors:

Message 7104 of 7107 | Previous | Next
Msg #
From: "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:40 pm
Subject: Re: [metatuning] Why do people like Aaron waste their
time with pseudoscience?

>I have never talked about vals or harmonic entropy.

If you become a student of Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
Smith's allegedly musical numerology, you will.
And since you have publicly expressed as desire to learn
about allegedly "musical" math from Gene (which actually
has no causal conenction with, and no explanatory power
for, music), what does a reasonable person conclude?

> You must have me confused with someone else.

Did you or did you not make a public post gushing over
the supposed wonders of Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
Smith's mathturbation?

Did you or did not make a public post on the Alternative
Wanking List thrilling over how you wanted "the math
to serve the music," without ever bothering to ask
the basic question of the skeptic -- what is the
objective verifiable evidence that math has any
causal connection with music? What is the objective
verifiable evidence that math has any explanatory
power for music?

I use the term "causal connection" here because
we can connect anything with anything else if
we jump through enough semantic hoops. Look! 3
dogs! Pythagorean tuning is based on the integer
3! Therefore those 3 dogs are connected to
Pythagorean tuning! We must study those 3 dogs
to learn about Pythagorean tuning!

No, utterly wrong. The person who does this is
merely playing empty word games, as Gene "Woolly-
Headed Numerology" Smith and Paul "All Quibbles,
No Compositions" Erlich and Carl "Spoiled Rich
Kid With A Big Mouth and Nothing To Back It Up"
Lumma love to do.

>I don't understand that stuff, and from what I can tell,
>don't really care to all that much. first and foremost,
>as a musician, I use my ears.

In that case, why did you publicly state you want to
learn about allegedly musical mathematics from Gene
Ward Smith?

You are contradicting yourself. In one public statement
you say one thing ("I want the math to serve the music"
and "I need a math tutor") in another public statement
you now say the opposite ("I don't understand that [math],
and...don't really care to").

Which of your public statements should we believe, Aaron?

>By and large, I agree with your assessment of the Benade experiment.
> And I am familiar with Shermer (I own 'Why people believe weird
> things') and really consider myself a skeptic.

You might consider yourself a skeptic, but do you think and
act like a skeptic? Do you constantly ask "What is the
evidence that these claims have any objectively verifiable
meaning?" and "How do we know -- what is the proof?"

That is what I have been doing, and I have been relentlessly
ridiculed for applying skepticism and critical thinking to
the claims made on the Alternative Wanking List. I have
been ridiculed for asking for evidence by the apostle of
unreason Carl Lumma for using facts and logic, and I have
been ridiculed for using logic and facts by the acolyte of
numerical addlepatedness Graham Breed.

If you are indeed a skeptic, so devoted to critical
thinking and the use of facts and logics, where were _you_,
Aaron K. Johnson, when the use of facts and logic and
common sense was being publicly ridiculed on this forum
just a few days ago?

The ridicule showered by Carl Lumma and Graham Breed
upon my calls for critical thinking and my use of
facts and logic have abated for the moment... But
trust me, Aaron K. Johnson, the ridicule will resume --
and with a vengeance. People as deeply anti-intellectual
as Carl "All Idle Speculations, No Facts" Lumma and
Graham Breed cannot abide the use of common sense.
It chafes on them. It makes them crazy, the way a
Klansman goes wild when watching a black man make love
to a white woman.

>I still say that in the limited experimental subspace of
>harmonic timbres, and acutely sensitive, perhaps trained
>muscians, there is something special, physically and
>mathematically, about small integer numeral ratios.

Your statement is provably false.

However, I'm going to excerpt this part of your provably
false claim and deal with it separately because it also
debunks most of what Paul "All Delusions, No Common
Sense" Erlich and Carl "My Daddy's Worth Millions So
I Never Have To Get A Life" Lumma and Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith have said about microtonality for the
past 10 years.

>You are right in stating that consonance is not reducible to
>[small integer ratios], and that children might not find
>these integers with oscillators, etc. Then again, most
>chhildren [sic] aren't aware of the phenomenon of beating,
>either.

Listeners are not normally aware of the phenomenon of beating.
Virtually no music listener is ever consciously aware of the
phenomenon of beating unless they stop listening musically
and begin listening very closely to tone complexes in an intensely
non-musical way. Even then, prolonged sustained tone complexes
are required sans vibrato and without tremolo, and we very
seldom hear such peculiar vibratoless perfectly-harmonic
long-sustained dyads and chords in real music in the
real world. Most real Western music moves right along,
and includes plenty of inharmonc timbres (drums, cymbals,
crotales, triangles, marimba, xylophone, cowbells, agogo,
timpani, celesta, etc., etc., etc.) that cover up and
completely eliminate any chance of hearing beats
in real music in the real world. Of course, that
includes JI music. Only the crackpot productions
of people on the ATL which use unlistenable timbres
that sound like smoke-detector-screeches let typical
music listeners actualy hear beats in JI music.
If you use real timbres from real instruments,
the beats just vanish. They get swallowed up in
the vibrato and the tremolo and the inharmonic
timbres and the breath sounds from the flute and
the crash of the cymbals.

>The neat thing about JI is that it's precisely about
>awareness of beating

No it isn't. Where on earth did you get the bizarre
idea that JI has _anything_ to do with awareness of
beating? JI has nothing whatever to do with awareness
of beating. JI music is completely disconnected from
any awareness of beating.

If you wish to claim otherwise, what is your evidence?
Prove to us that JI is based on awareness of beating.

Of course, you can't. Serious JI compoers use all kinds
of tone-complexes, and seldom have any interest or
any concern whatever that beats are occurring. There are
as many approaches to composing with JI as there are
composers, and very few serious JI composers have any
concern about the acoustic roughness or smoothness of
the tone-complexes in their JI compositions.

The composer who has produced by far the most music
in just intonation, Warren Burt, has discussed this
extensively with me. Warren has zero interest in
whether the intervals in his JI compositions exhibit
any beating or lack of beating. Warren typically
approaches a JI composition by asking "What does
this JI tuning sound like?" He composes a piece of
music to find out.

Likewise, Bill Wesley, who has composed hours and
hours of JI music using his extended Pythagorean
array mbira, has no interest or concern whatsoever
for whether the listener is aware than any
of his JI tone complexes beat. Bill Wesley's
concern centers around elaborate polyrhythms
performed live on his unique array keyboard,
and to a subsidiary extent his is interested
in the overall "sound" or "flavor" of a given
JI tuning.

I've composed hours of JI music and I have no
interest or concern whatever in "awarenss of
beating." My interest in JI tunings arises
from the exotic new melodies made possible
by unique new JI tunings, the strange and
potentially musically useful new members of
the harmonic series which make their debut,
the potential for exciting new kinds of
dissonance which typically is melodic and
chord progression dissonance with no
connection to beating, and the interaction of
rhythm with new JI tunings.

I could describe many other JI composers, none
of whom have any concern whatever about beating
when the produce JI music. These people have
the sorts of interests real composers have --
what can I do with this scale? What sort of
melodies can I produce? Will the meters and
rhythms I use be influenced by changing to
a different type of scale? What kinds of
musical forms does this new scale encourage
or discourage? What kinds of musical drama
can I explore with this new scale? Does
this new scale have different emotional
effects from the conventional Western scale?

None of that has anything to do with awareness
of acoustic beating.

>None of the people I know from this list have
>ever given me the idea that they are delusional
>about the true nature of consonance.

Dante Rosati's 16th-century-era old wives tales
about consonance have no verifiable factual
connection with reality. A delusion is a claim
which has no verifiable factual connection with
reality. What does a reasonable person conclude
from the facts?

>In any event let's talk some basic facts:

>1) your argument style is basically a mixture of
>sound reasoning and scholarship with generous sprinkling
>of ad hominem (that's basically name-calling).

Your statement is provably false. In fact, the exact
reverse of your statement is the case.

The only people who have indulged in name-calling
on this forum are Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
Smith and Dante Rosati. These people have descended
into name-calling repeatedly.

By contrast, I have confined myself to stating
documented facts.

It is a documented fact that Dante Rosati has lied
and lied and lied.

It is a documented fact that Gene Ward Smith has
lied and lied and lied.

You'll want to check your facts, Aaron K. Johnson,
because the objective reality is that I have never
called names on this forum. I have stated
simple facts. If people do not like being
described as "someone who has lied and lied and
lied," the solution isn't to shoot the messenger.
The solution is to avoid telling lies in public.

>If you wish to be taken seriously, try shedding that
>aspect of it. If you wish to remain being seen as one
>of the more unpleasant posters in this universe, by
>all means continue.

Since the Alternative Lying List is devoted to
lies and based on lies and founded on lies,
it stands to reason that anything the Alternative
Lying List believes is the opposite of the
truth.

Therefore why would any sane person want to be
taken seriously by the Alternative Lying List?
If I am taken seriously by the Alternative Lying
List, it must mean that I am spouting gibberish.
Contrariwise, if I am ridiculed and sneered at and
marginalized by the Alternative Lying List, this
is proof positive that I am stating documented
facts about microtonal music.

Likewise, if the Alternative Lying List considers
me "one of the more unpleasant posters in this
universe," this offers us rock-solid evidence
that I must be one of the world's nicest people
and that my posts are charming and delightful.
I take that as a compliment. Thanks.

If the Alternative Lying List were ever to start
treating me with respect, I would become very
worried. If the Alternative Lying List were ever
to start remarking upon the wisdom and accuracy
and pleasantness of what I am saying, I would
ahve to immediately stop, panic-stricken and look
about in terror.

"What terribly foolish thing have I inadvertently
said?" I would have to ask in that case.
I would have to rub my forehead and rack my
brain, asking over and over, "I must have
unwittingly said something so idiotic and
so preposterous that even a small child
would laugh out loud, in order to get the
Alternative Lying List to approve of my
statement... What can I have said that is
so outrageously nonsensical? What benighted
folly have I gibbered without realizing it?"

In fact, the fact that a member who has posted
recently on the Alternative Lying List (namely
Aaron K. Johnson) remarks that he agrees with
me about Arthur Benade's special relationships
indicates that I may have made a serious
error in logic or facts. Since the Alternative
Lying List is based on lies and derived from
lies and powered by lies and exists to
pereptuate lies, any time someone from the
Alternative Lying List says that I'm factually
correct (or may be factually correct) about
something I've said about music...this gives
me great concern.

If someone who hands out on the ATL says I'm
right about Benade, I must carefully re-check
my post on Arthur Benade to find out whether
I have made some incredibly foolish mistake
or said something absolutely crazy and
obviously and flatly false. That is the
only way that I could get someone from the
Alternative Lying List to agree with anything
I say, as far as I can say -- if I were to
spout absolute factually false gibberish,
or if I were to spew mindless superstition
that doesn't even pass the straight-face test.

>2) being such an angry, microtonal curmudgeon has two
down-sides:

What is your evidence that I am "angry" or a
"curmudgeon"? I have applied logic and facts
to examine the evidence. Why is that "angry"?

I have consistently asked "What is the evidence
that this is true?" Why is that a sign that
I am a "curmudgeon"?

These are the kinds of discredited ad hominem
arguments psychic surgeons and crystal healers
try to use when they get debunked. "Oh, that
guy is just _angry_! He's so _threatened_
by our wonderful body of crystal healing
knowledge... What a terrible angry curmudgeon
that James Randi is... Oh, it's awful --
simply awful! That horrible Carl Sagan
was an _ angry curmudgeon _!"

Skepticism and critical thinking are neutral.
They neither praise nor condemn. If Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith can come
up with hard obejctive verifiable evidence
so support the implicit claim that vals
have any objectively verifiable musical
meaning, then asking for proof greatly
_strengthens_ Gene Smith's claims. On the
other hand, if Gene Smith is spouting
speudoscientific jabberwocky, then asking
for proof *destroys* Smith's credibility.

It's not a matter of "anger" or
"curmudgeonliness" or any other squishy
touchy-feelie ooh-so-new-age emotional
gush. Either Smith has evidence to
show that his mathematical manipuations
aren't pseudoscience, or he doesn't.
It's simple. Shit or get off the pot.
Yes or no. There's no alleged "anger"
invovled in asking for proof. It's
just asking for proof. That skeptical
critical thinking. That's the basis of
modern Western civilization. Trying to
evade a request for proof by slandering
it as "anger" won't work, Aaron. That's
an old old scam, and it never worked
for the crystal healers against James
Randi, and it never worked for the
ufologists against Carl Sagan, and
it won't work for Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith against me.

>* anger produces toxins which are unhealthy for the
>human bodies' normal functioning.

What is your evidence for this statement? Please
provide proof in the form of peer-reviewed
articles from the scientific literature. I believe
this claim has been debunked as new age twaddle.

>* you are alienating yourself from an already small community.

Since the Alternative Lying List has long since alienated
itself from the entire microtonal community -- which has
no connection with the Alternative Lying List -- all
serious microtonal composers are de facto alienated
from the Alternative Lying List. The Alternative Lying
List has showered microtonal composers with acid contempt.

The Alternative Lying List has pissed in the face of
everyone who has tried to create anything worthwhile in
microtonal. Indeed, I'm surprised the pathological liars
and character assassins who tyrannize the ATL don't
go grave-robbing so they can dig up the corpses of
dead microtonal composers and defile them.

The rage and hatred and frenzy of the ATL against
anyone who displays even the merest spark of creativity
is terrifying to behold. It's like watching students
during Mao's Cultural Revolution burn books and beat
college professors to death. Nothing fills the ATL
with insensate hatred like creativity, and that means
that microtonal composers have come in for the brunt
of the unconscionable unbelievable verbal abuse
dished out by arrogant incompetent ignorami who
tyrannize the ATL as moderators (while the moderators
themselves produce nothing and create nothing and
generate nothing of any significance in microtonality).

The ATL has marginalized itself to an incredible degree.
It has made itself a laughingstock throughout the entire
microtonal community. The ATL has destroyed its reputation
as anything but a tarpit of mindless superstition and
pathological lies. The ATL has ruthlessly and
savagely ridiculed everyone who has tried to compose
microtonal music and pissed in the faces of everyone who
has actually been musically creative in the true microtonal
community (which has nothing to do with the ATL).

Consequently all serious practicing microtonal composers
find themselves alienated from the Alternative Lying List,
as Kraig Grady has pointed out:

-------------------------------------------------------------
"It is unfortunate that the abuse that practically every artist
who really makes music on the list has been subjected to has
hunted you down without you even being on the list. It is for
this reason that so many have left and you do not even have
that option. I wouldn't bother yourself in taking anything
on this list seriously or even consideration. It is done by
those who are left and they are the ones not making the real
music or any music in many cases.
"The proof is in the pudding... (..) On the other hand, we have
a personality [Paul Erlich] who places himself above Helmholtz,
proposes a temperament (22) that some of history's most inspired
theorists have rejected for good reason, and a concept of tuning
based on the idea that the more ambiguous an interval is, the
better it is to use musically (entropy). One is left with a
corpse and this is after years of interaction with [Paul Erlich],
on a daily basis. Only a moron could take anything he said
about [Harry Partch] seriously. In fact in all my years of
dealing with others in the musical world, i can not think
of a less productive interchange with anyone who I have gained
so little. But at least [Erlich] managed to promote himself in
the process. The list has taken his lead which leads us to
the unfortunate fact that the tuning list is the biggest
obstacle to the advancement of microtonal music. Or
to the advancement of any music for that matter." -- Kraig
Grady, 31 January 2004
------------------------------------------------------------

Aaron K. Johnson went on to claim:

>3) a person's right to exist on the tuning list is
>in no way proportional to their compositional output.

This is the old discredited "everyone has a
right to an opinion" claim.

WRONG.

You have a right to an INFORMED opinion.

NO ONE has a "right" to the opinion that 2 + 2 =7.

NO ONE has a "right" to the opinion that the earth
is flat.

NO ONE has a "right" to the opinion that witches
threaten us all and we need to start burnin' 'em
right quick in public.

The requirement that a person's opinion be INFORMED
before they start spraying it around like a firehose
goes double for a moderator of an online discussion
group.

To be a moderator, a person had goddamn well better
have S*O*M*E verifiable actual experience-based
expertise in microtonality. Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith has no discernible experience-based
knowledge about microtonality. And as a result essentially
everything Smith says about microtonality is either
musically meaningless or flatly false.

The moderator Paul "All Attacks, No Facts" Erlich
has no discernible experience-based knowledge
about microtonality. And as a result virtually
every single Paul "Piss In Everyone's Face While
Accomplishing Nothing" Erlich says about microtonality
is either musically vacuous twaddle, or outright
falsities.

The moderator Carl "Tear Everyone Down To Fit His
Secret Image Of Himself" Lumma has no discernible
experience-based knowledge about microtonality. And
as a result essentially everything Carl Lumma says
about microtonality is either musically meaningless
or provably incorrect.

The moderators on the Alternative Lying List are by
far the worst offenders of all as far as hysterical
name-calling and insults and envenomed verbal
abuse is concerned -- the ATL moderators lie and lie
and lie, and most of 'em have produced virtually no
microtonal music. The moderators of the Alternative
Lying List are for all practical purposes completely
ignorant of microtonality, and as a result the moderators
on the ATL punish knowledge and reward ignorance, they
encourage lying and censor and crush anyone who tells
the truth, they spew hate in service of mindless
superstitions and they celebrate pseudoscience and
musically meaningless numerology while sneering with
unpseakable contempt at valid experience-based
knowledge about microtonality.

>Many people enjoy talking about the mathematical
>side of tuning theory.

The mathematical side of tuning theory has no
connection with what goes on in the Alternative
Lying List. The ATL spews out numerology, which
is something completely different from "the
mathematical side of tuning theory."

>It's not MY first interest, and obviously it's not
>yours, but, what the fuck? Just leave them alone
>and let them be !!!!!

Here Aaron K. Johnson shows that he is not a skeptic
and that he has nothing but hostility for the
concept of skeptical critical thinking.

In fact, Aaron K. Johnson here shows us an attitude
that is completely anti-intellectual. It takes a lot
to bug me...but this kind of attitude bugs me. It
really gets under my skin.

Look, goddamit. America is an open society. We're
founded on the concept that when people disagree,
they should debate about their differences. Other
countries don't take that approach. They pull people
out of line in the street and kneel 'em down in
a goddamn ditch and shoot 'em in the head one by
one.

We don't do that here in America because we believe
that people can and should debate about differences
of belief.

Now Aaron K. Johnson tells us, nope...no debate.
Open discussion? Not tolerated. Freewheeling
to-and-fro? Not on Aaron K. Johnson's watch.

I remember seeing red-neck thugs sneer "America -
love it or leave it!" about people who protested
against the war in Viet Nam when I was a little
kid, and I can't begin to tell you how disgusting
and how anti-American and how anti-democratic
and how anti-intellectual that is.

That boils to saying, "No debate! If you want
to dissent, get out!"

That's not a democracy, Aaron K. Johnson. That's
not the America I was born in.

In the America I was born in, dissent is *healthy*.
In the America I was born in, people with beliefs
are expected to back up those beliefs with facts
and logic in open debate. And if they can't do
that, well, tough titty. That's just too goddamn
bad. If you live in a democracy and you can't
make a convincing case for your belief, then
your belief deserves to go down in flames. That's
the meaning of a free society. We don't stifle
debate. We don't ban dissent. We don't shout
"What the fuck?????" when someone points out
"Hey -- this war is Vietnam isn't going the
way Nixon said it would, and we've been lied
to, and the Pentagon papers prove it, and
everybody look at all the lies and the bullshit
and the cover-ups that are going on here!"

More to the point, in America we don't shout
"What the fuck????" when someone points out
"Hey -- there are no WMDS like Powell and
Cheney and Rumsfeld and Bush said there were,
and this war in Iraq isn't going the way Bush
said it would, and we've been lied to, and
Clarke's book proves it, and everybody look at
all the lies and the bullshit and cover-ups
that are going on here!"

You had better think reaaaaaaaaal hard, Aaron
K. Johnson, before you start taking such an
incredibly anti-democratic and anti-intellectual
attitude as saying "What the fuck???? If you
don't like it, just leave. The tuning list -
LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT, YOU FUCKIN' COMMIE
PINKO BASTARD!"

Not only do you betrary the fundamental principles
of American democracy when you try to feed us
something as anti-intellectual as as covertly
Stalinist as "What the fuck??? If you don't like
it, leave..." you also completely betray the most
basic precepts of skepticism and critical thinking.

Because guess what? Aaron, this is exactly the
same response repressed memory "therapists" and
Kirlian aura "healers" and John-Edwards-type
"psychics" give to anyone who starts debunking
their cruel and deceptive and worthless twaddle.
The repressed memory "therapist" becomes
outraged. "What the fuck????? If you don't like
it, leave..." The Kirlian aura "healer" erupts
with range. "What the fuck????? If you don't
like Kirlian auras and their magical wonderful
healing powers, just leave..." The John-Edwards-
type "psychic" con artists become apoplectic
with umbrage. "What the fuck???? If you don't
like me taking $300 per hour from grief-stricken
dupes and patsies, why, just leave..."

That's shameful. It's absolutely inexcusable.
In an open society, ANYONE has a right to
point out the logical and factual flaws in
ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, at ANY TIME.

Skeptical critical thinking requires that we take
anything that looks like a science and subject it
to the common sense test of reality. If what
looks like science turns out to be pseudoscience,
then we must decry it as pseudoscience and
relegate it to the realm of the astrologer and
the dowser and the phoney psychic who pretends
to bend spoons with the power of his mind.

Mathematics is a science. The twaddle on the
Alternative Lying List uses mathematics. Therefore
by definition it pretends to be science. But it
is not science and has no connection with science.
What does skeptical critical thinking require
we do when faced with something that looks like
science, but has no connection with science?

>They end up doing some interesting work anyway,
>and opening some doors through pure speculation
and mathmatical games. Calling it 'wanking' is
disrespectful, to say the least. And if you do't
>respect it, ignore it.

This is the discredited argument of the new age
crystal healer and the astrologer. To see how
intellectually bankrupt and fallacious your
argument is, let us change one word:

>Astrologers end up doing some interesting work
>anyway, and opening some doors through pure
>speculation and mathematical games. Calling it
>'wanking' is disrespectful, to say the least. ANd
>if you don't respect it, ignore it.

Wrong on all counts. As you can now see, your
assertions are a mish-mash of muddy thinking,
the argument by non sequitur objection, and
the discredited argument of "love it or leave it"
(AKA "there shall be no debate about this
subject").

>Why re you choosing to be SO threatened by it?
>Perhaps you recognize yourself in it? Perhaps you
>are tempted to 'engage in wanking' too? Besides, most
>creative thhings come from sort of crystallization
>of the best of some kind of 'wanking' ;)

Once again, garbled reasoning and scrambled logic.
Let's run through the logical fallacies in your
argument: [1] the logical fallacy of equating
skepticism with hostility. What is your evidence
that asking for evidence of a blief means "you
[are] choosing to be SO threatened by it"? This
is the kind of wacky claim made by crackpots
with pereptual motion machines -- "scientists
are asking me to prove that my perpetual
motion machine actually works because they
are SO threatened by it!"
[2] What is your evidence that I am tempted
to 'engage in wanking' regarding tuning? Can
you cite any of my articles on microtonality
in which I spew numerology without ever
bothering to test it against reality, or
derive it from reality?
[3] The logical fallacy of the argument tu
quoque -- "everyone does it." Even if
your claim were true that "most creative
things come from" pseudoscience, that would
not excuse pseudoscience. In any case, there
is no evidence to support your claim that
creative things come from pseudoscience --
and the proof is clear. Pseudoscientists are
invariably the least creative people around.
Serious artists and serious musicians and
serious playwrights and serious novelists
do not spend their lives drawing lattices
and inventing perpetual motion machines
and attempting to mathematically decrypt
the bible, because if they did, they
wouldn't have time to create art or music
or plays or novels. The big problem with
pseudoscience is that it produces nothing
of any value and tends to take up everyone's
time, leaving no time for anything else.

>4) continuing the last point....if something
>doesn't interest me about the tuning-math stuff,
>or I don't understand it, I just don't read it.
>I go to MMM, which is largely a practical list,
>and discuss music there. The tuning-list can
>be as mathematical as it wants to be, for all
>I care. I'm still having the discussions I
>need to have. The beauty of the internet is
>that everyone can get their fix !!!

So let's see...if a group of astrologers take
over the National Academy of Sciences, it
doesn't matter, right? Because you can
always discuss science somewhere else?

And if a group of Bolsheviks take over the
Russian government that doesn't matter either.
After all, we can always discuss politics
somewhere else. Say, Czechoslovakia. And
if the Bolsheviks invade and take over
Czechoslovakia, we can always discuss politics
somewhere else...say, East Germany. And if
the Bolsheviks put up a Berlin Wall to isolate
East Germany and keep it communist, we can
always go somewhere else to discuss politics...

What we're looking at is nothing less than a
power-grab by the numerologists who have
successfully shoved the actual musicians
and composers into the closet and nailed
the doors shut on the ATL. Now the power-grab
continues. The numerologists on the ATL are
agitating, RIGHT NOW, THIS MINUTE, to combine
all the lists. Why? Anschluss! More
lebensraum for numerology!

And you tell us to "just not worry about it"
and "if you don't like it, just leave"...????

What on earth can have been going through
your head, Aaron K. Johnson, to come up with
reasoning like that?
---------
--mclaren

Aaron K. Johnson makes some good points, but falls into errors

🔗xenharmonic <xed@...>

🔗piccolosandcheese <jbarton@...>

🔗monz <monz@...>

🔗Graham Breed <graham@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗piccolosandcheese <jbarton@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗monz <monz@...>

🔗detachment2701 <detachment2701@...>