RE: !@#$%^&* to Dan Wolf

This message I posted on December 5 was not only insulting to Mr. Wolf,
but ended up insulting him behind his back, as he already signed off the
list. Daniel brought a great deal of knowledge and experience to the
discussions here, and I felt that it would be a great loss to have him
sign off. I felt insulted on behalf of the list subscribers, especially
the newer ones, as I interpreted Daniel's comments to indicate that he
had nothing more to learn and it was not worth his while to teach.
Another interpretation is possible, however; Daniel may simply have been
too busy to keep up with the influx of new subscribers and (often) old
topics and needed to focus more time on real life for a while. With
insulting brats like myself around having no lives ourselves, who could
blame him?

My sincerest apologies to Daniel Wolf and here's hoping he returns to
the fold soon.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul H. Erlich
>Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 3:53 PM
>To: 'tuning@eartha.mills.edu'
>Subject: !@#$%^&* to Dan Wolf
>
>>after [the mid 70's], basically no self-respecting early keyboardis=
>>t
>>would be caught dead tuning in ET.
>
>>We have been through this discussion so thoroughly before that I figure
>>that I have gone full circle with the tuning list. So, I'll sign off for =
>>a
>>while with a suggestion that new subscribers should spend some time with
>>the list archives. =
>
>
>>Daniel Wolf
>
>
>You're probably gone already, so I won't bother trying to come up with the
>right Yiddish expression to describe your arrogance. I joined this list in
>the #600s, and Paul Rapoport and I have been repetedly asking the same
>question (deleted above: what recordings of WTC 1&2 exist in unequal
>temperaments) to no avail (except that I already knew of the Anthony Newman).
>The archives, which I read, only go up to about #350, so the "so thorough
>discussion" of this must have occured between 350 and 600. Will somebody just
>name a good recording of WTC 1&2 in some kind of pseudo-authentic tuning,
>PLEASE, so I don't have to plunk $50 on some equal-tempered or lousily played
>version? P.S. I think you're dead wrong about most harpsichordists, but God
>bless your optimism.


SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: John Chalmers
Subject: EMI
PostedDate: 05-02-98 21:38:07
SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH
ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
$MessageStorage: 0
$UpdatedBy: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH,CN=Manuel op de Coul/OU=AT/O=EZH
RouteServers: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=notesrv1/OU=Server/O=EZH
RouteTimes: 05-02-98 21:37:07-05-02-98 21:37:08,05-02-98 21:35:41-05-02-98 21:35:41
DeliveredDate: 05-02-98 21:35:41
Categories:
$Revisions:

Received: from ns.ezh.nl ([137.174.112.59]) by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2
9-3-1997)) with SMTP id C12565A2.00714006; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 21:36:59 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA09064; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 21:38:07 +0100
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 21:38:07 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA09062
Received: (qmail 14215 invoked from network); 5 Feb 1998 12:37:19 -0800
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 5 Feb 1998 12:37:19 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu