Re: farewell

>It's too bad that this most gentle off-list message from Jon
>elicited this response in you, Carl.

I did not find it gentle. I was so shocked when I finished
the first paragraph of Jon's message that I had to rub my
eyes...

"
I had to write off-list, for a specific reason: I've had a
number of new people join MMM recently who mentioned that
they liked that it was absent of the bickering that went on
on other lists. So I won't make the mistake of having little
spats if I can at all humanly avoid it.
"

...the rest of the message bummed my whole evening out.

>I'm sure you could have addressed Jon's haste-to-judge offlist
>(where it was expressed), and spared everyone, especially
>yourselves, the resulting pain.

On the contrary, I think MMM subscribers might like to know:
post to MMM and you invite patronizing messages off-list.

Jon: intentions are not the sum total of ethics.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> Jon: intentions are not the sum total of ethics.

Jon thinks of this as a reasonable way of preserving the character of
MMM; however my problem with that is that if he's going to slap
people's hands he ought to be more careful about it. He sent me a
note accusing me, falsely, of calling Ralph Jarzombek tone deaf which
was a clear misreading of what I said, though I suppose an
understandable one.

I am bothered by this thread. There is almost now a flamewar based on
offlist messages becoming public. Is not the netiquette for offline
messages that they stay offline unless the writer agrees?

IMHO it is important to have both online and offline messages and to
keep them separate. One is public the other is private. The good
qualities of having offline messages available is that they lower
volume AND help to keep flames down and private differences stay
private or get privately settled.

Bernath Gabor

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning"
<alternativetuning@a...> wrote:

> I am bothered by this thread. There is almost now a flamewar based
on
> offlist messages becoming public. Is not the netiquette for offline
> messages that they stay offline unless the writer agrees?

No, the netiquette is that you should not quote from it, or at least
not extensively, unless the author agrees. This is driven in good
measure by legal considerations.

> IMHO it is important to have both online and offline messages and to
> keep them separate. One is public the other is private. The good
> qualities of having offline messages available is that they lower
> volume AND help to keep flames down and private differences stay
> private or get privately settled.

If someone were to send you harassing email you are claiming you
could not comment on that?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

>
> If someone were to send you harassing email you are claiming you
> could not comment on that?

I have seen enough misunderstanding among people with goodwill that I
would first assume that this is a misunderstanding and try to work out
it offline. If this does not work out after trying honestly or if the
harassing is proven to be real, then I will publicly indicate the
problem in a neutral not passionate way. Prent's pages about trolls
have good suggestions about how to handle this.

But I will not quote an offline message without permission. That would
make me also as bad as a troll.

Gabor

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

>
> If someone were to send you harassing email you are claiming you
> could not comment on that?

Also, as a person with experience of the totalitarian system (when
only I was a child, but surely also knowing something from my parents
and grandparents experiences), there is a big difference between an
uncomfortable private message from one private person to another and a
public denunciation. The uncomfortable private message can also be an
invitation to communicate and negotiate and may be to make things
clear up. The public denunciation is communication in one direction,
not to be negotiated and will never go away completely.

Gabor

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning"
<alternativetuning@a...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
>
> >
> > If someone were to send you harassing email you are claiming you
> > could not comment on that?
>
> Also, as a person with experience of the totalitarian system (when
> only I was a child, but surely also knowing something from my parents
> and grandparents experiences), there is a big difference between an
> uncomfortable private message from one private person to another and a
> public denunciation. The uncomfortable private message can also be an
> invitation to communicate and negotiate and may be to make things
> clear up. The public denunciation is communication in one direction,
> not to be negotiated and will never go away completely.

I would not have mentioned my email from Jon except for the fact that
I thought Carl was being denounced a little too harshly.

Gene,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> however my problem with that is that if he's going to slap
> people's hands he ought to be more careful about it.

You have no idea how much care I try to exercise, and how much I hold back - especially when I think of my *personal* biases. In fact, I try not to ask for people to check themselves until and unless I hear complaints.

I'll always try to be more careful, as learning is life-long. Maybe other people can be as introspective about their actions, unless they happen to think their shit don't stink.

> He sent me a note accusing me, falsely, of calling Ralph Jarzombek
> tone deaf which was a clear misreading of what I said...

Man, I just don't know what to do: I said nothing about Ralph whatsoever:

"There is no need for you to be insulting, but you choose to do it. The issue is not what differences a person can hear, but choice. And if someone is tone-deaf, that is their problem. I don't look at MMM as a forum for claims of superiority/inferiority. If someone comes onlist and doesn't have golden ears, I'm not going to hold it against them, and I certainly don't see value in someone else making fun of their choices.

Unless they ask."

It was a statement of general beliefs, and since there have been a handful of new members in the last week or so, it could very well apply to any of them. It was neither in direct reference to RJ or did it mention him at all.

I won't hold my breath for the apology, and we've all been called "liars" way too many times...

Regards,
Jon

Carl,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> I was so shocked when I finished
> the first paragraph of Jon's message that I had to rub my
> eyes...

Shocked? I don't believe that for a New York minute.

> ...the rest of the message bummed my whole evening out.

Do you have ANY idea of the angst all of this has caused me, from well before you got 'your message' to well after? And simply because I am trying to moderate a place people actually *like*?

Talk about bummed out, I'll tell you...

> On the contrary, I think MMM subscribers might like to know:
> post to MMM and you invite patronizing messages off-list.

Answered in a previous post to meta. I write frequently, and the high percentage is positive. The messages flow out in response to input, and you are in the problem category right now.

> Jon: intentions are not the sum total of ethics.

I'll make that my next tattoo, bank on it.

Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> It was a statement of general beliefs, and since there have been a
handful of new members in the last week or so, it could very well
apply to any of them. It was neither in direct reference to RJ or did
it mention him at all.

I wasn't actually insulting anyone, but you accuse of engaging in
deliberate insult anyway and berate me because of it?

> I won't hold my breath for the apology, and we've all been
called "liars" way too many times...

You first, Jon. Where's your apology?

> > I was so shocked when I finished
> > the first paragraph of Jon's message that I had to rub my
> > eyes...
>
> Shocked? I don't believe that for a New York minute.

Believe.

Clearly I went overboard, though, and I'm sorry for that.
However, I still think our philosophical differences are
such that I shouldn't participate on MMM.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> Clearly I went overboard, though, and I'm sorry for that.
> However, I still think our philosophical differences are
> such that I shouldn't participate on MMM.

I doubt there really are any.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> I wasn't actually insulting anyone

So "tone-deaf", to you, is a compliment?

> but you accuse of engaging in
> deliberate insult anyway and berate me because of it?

Gene:
> He sent me a note accusing me, falsely, of calling Ralph Jarzombek
> tone deaf which was a clear misreading of what I said...

Jon:
> I said nothing about Ralph whatsoever

I said this in a previous post. I didn't accuse you falsely of anything.

> You first, Jon. Where's your apology?

I'm getting it tattooed. It is a growing collection.

Regards,
Jon

Carl,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> Believe.

Then think of it as a reality check. I've had lots of them in the last number of months with these lists.

> Clearly I went overboard, though, and I'm sorry for that.

In any sense that I went overboard, I feel sorry as well, expressed both to you and our colleagues. Especially since my intent was to find a way out, rather than rub salt in the wounds. Another apparent failure on my part, but not for not trying.

> However, I still think our philosophical differences are
> such that I shouldn't participate on MMM.

I think that is probably best, and my activities on the main tuning list will be restricted to posting informational notices (such as Partch events) only; I will not post on discussions, etc.

Regards,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > I wasn't actually insulting anyone
>
> So "tone-deaf", to you, is a compliment?

No, it is a way of describing people who cannot tell one tuning from
another. Obviously, one would not expect very many tone-deaf people
to interest themselves in music, particularly of a microtonal kind,
so it was not a way of describing anyone reading MMM or likely to.
That you chose to see it as an insult is not my fault, and makes no
sense at all. That you saw it as a reason to complain to me in email,
given your own history of flaming me in public, makes even less sense.

> I said this in a previous post. I didn't accuse you falsely of
anything.

You blasted me for being insulting. I can hardly be faulted for
thinking you must have at least had someone in mind.

Gene,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> No, it is a way of describing people who cannot tell one tuning from
> another.

Ah, literalism. Well, lots of musicians know the term "tone deaf" as a derogatory one. Just as the word stupid may mean "lacking normal intelligence", but the phrase "Whatsa matta, you stupid or somethin?" would be considered in another context.

> That you chose to see it as an insult is not my fault, and makes no
> sense at all.

I guess that is your "Get Out of Jail Free" card: if someone is insulted, it must be their fault. Lovely.

> > I said this in a previous post. I didn't accuse you falsely of
> anything.
>
> You blasted me for being insulting.

Read it again: I didn't accuse you falsely. You refuse to own up to your own accusations.

> I can hardly be faulted...

Yes, we've gathered that.

Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Gene,
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > No, it is a way of describing people who cannot tell one tuning
from
> > another.
>
> Ah, literalism. Well, lots of musicians know the term "tone deaf"
as a derogatory one.

My office mate in grad school was tone deaf, and as a consequence did
not like music of any description. When I use the word, I'm thinking
of my good friend.

> I guess that is your "Get Out of Jail Free" card: if someone is
insulted, it must be their fault. Lovely.

You've taken no responsibility for insulting me repeatedly, but want
to make me sorry for saying something you yourself admit was not
directed at anyone. Is there a point to this?

Gene,

> You've taken no responsibility for insulting me repeatedly...

"So, sorry for maybe not pointing out your pages."

"...and it was a mistake of me ..."

"I'm no mind-reader. If THAT is what hurt your feelings, then very much I apologize. And certainly won't comment on them further."

Just a random sampling of items I've sent to you from my private mail, not counting (I'm sure) similar items that I've posted on the various lists during discussions.

> but want to make me sorry for saying something you yourself admit
> was not directed at anyone. Is there a point to this?

Initially, to ask you to see that attitude, in the context of a discussion, can say as much as the content. But now there *is* no point: I have spectacularly failed at attempts to moderate/mediate a situation with you. I'll have to figure something else out from my end of things.

Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_7171.html#7183

> > > I was so shocked when I finished
> > > the first paragraph of Jon's message that I had to rub my
> > > eyes...
> >
> > Shocked? I don't believe that for a New York minute.
>
> Believe.
>
> Clearly I went overboard, though, and I'm sorry for that.
> However, I still think our philosophical differences are
> such that I shouldn't participate on MMM.
>
> -Carl

***Personally I think that's a little silly, Carl, since Jon has gone
out of his way to state that MMM is not *his* list or only reflective
of *his* ideas... That's what *I've* been getting anyway...

(no long off list emails now, Jon... :) :) :)

JP

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_7171.html#7186

> Carl,
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > Believe.
>
> Then think of it as a reality check. I've had lots of them in the
last number of months with these lists.
>
> > Clearly I went overboard, though, and I'm sorry for that.
>
> In any sense that I went overboard, I feel sorry as well, expressed
both to you and our colleagues. Especially since my intent was to
find a way out, rather than rub salt in the wounds. Another apparent
failure on my part, but not for not trying.
>
> > However, I still think our philosophical differences are
> > such that I shouldn't participate on MMM.
>
> I think that is probably best, and my activities on the main tuning
list will be restricted to posting informational notices (such as
Partch events) only; I will not post on discussions, etc.
>
> Regards,
> Jon

***I'm really not getting it. Carl made a rather strong statement
about reading (not) about composition on the list. However, Daniel
Wolf nicely answered it and provided the necessary perspective from a
*composerly* point of view. So vats zie deal??

JP

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_7171.html#7188

> Gene,
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > No, it is a way of describing people who cannot tell one tuning
from
> > another.
>
> Ah, literalism. Well, lots of musicians know the term "tone deaf"
as a derogatory one. Just as the word stupid may mean "lacking normal
intelligence", but the phrase "Whatsa matta, you stupid or somethin?"
would be considered in another context.
>
> > That you chose to see it as an insult is not my fault, and makes
no
> > sense at all.
>
> I guess that is your "Get Out of Jail Free" card: if someone is
insulted, it must be their fault. Lovely.
>
> > > I said this in a previous post. I didn't accuse you falsely of
> > anything.
> >
> > You blasted me for being insulting.
>
> Read it again: I didn't accuse you falsely. You refuse to own up to
your own accusations.
>
> > I can hardly be faulted...
>
> Yes, we've gathered that.
>
> Jon

***Here's another one I'm going to stupidly stick my butt into...:
It all depends on one's perspective of "tone deafness..." Is it a
*perceptional* thing, such as not distinguishing tunings one from
another or is it a *composerly* thing, where a person can't organize
materials properly from a *semantic* point of view??

Some people seem to feel that a composer can make *semantic* sense
out of almost anything. Others disagree.

So who is really the "deaf" one... ??

JP

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:

> ***Here's another one I'm going to stupidly stick my butt into...:
> It all depends on one's perspective of "tone deafness..." Is it a
> *perceptional* thing, such as not distinguishing tunings one from
> another or is it a *composerly* thing, where a person can't
organize
> materials properly from a *semantic* point of view??

The first. I simply commented that tone-deafness meant you could not
tell one tuning from another, as a way of distinguishing that from
the position that all tunings are equally good. Jon called that an
insult (though whom it insulted he still hasn't said) and sent me a
nastygram over it.