All in the spirit of friendship, Gene

Gene, I'm just trying to help you avoid a lot of acrimony that is
going to result between you and others in the future if you continue
using this sort of intent. Everything I said about you was said in
good fun and in the spirit of helpfulness, and I hope you take it
that way. Sorry if it came off as harsh, but better you hear it from
a friend now than from an enemy later.

--- In tuning-math@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

> Gene, I'm just trying to help you avoid a lot of acrimony that is
> going to result between you and others in the future if you continue
> using this sort of intent. Everything I said about you was said in
> good fun and in the spirit of helpfulness, and I hope you take it
> that way.

For future reference, that sort of harsh personal attack is not normally going to be taken in a spirit of fun, and should be avoided unless you mean to get into serious eye-gouging.

Sorry if it came off as harsh, but better you hear it from
> a friend now than from an enemy later.

Hmmm...well, I suppose you know people say exactly the same sort of things about you. In fact, I think I've heard more about PE's arrogance than of GWS's.

--- In tuning-math@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > Gene, I'm just trying to help you avoid a lot of acrimony that is
> > going to result between you and others in the future if you
continue
> > using this sort of intent. Everything I said about you was said
in
> > good fun and in the spirit of helpfulness, and I hope you take it
> > that way.
>
> For future reference, that sort of harsh personal attack is not
>normally going to be taken in a spirit of fun, and should be avoided
>unless you mean to get into serious eye-gouging.

Correct, my apologies, and promises never to repeat . . .

> Sorry if it came off as harsh, but better you hear it from
> > a friend now than from an enemy later.
>
> Hmmm...well, I suppose you know people say exactly the same sort of
>things about you. In fact, I think I've heard more about PE's
>arrogance than of GWS's.

Fair enough -- see my private e-mail to you. I'm working on it, and
by investing a lot of time and effort, I've been able to defuse most
of the more violent misunderstandings I've been involved in, and keep
them defused.

Let me propose the following agreement: rather than questioning
whether a certain item (which inevitably has one or more authors)
makes negligible sense, infinitesimal sense, or somewhere in between,
and leaving it at that, we will, in the future,

(a) state that we disagree, perhaps "disagree strongly" with said
item;

(b) explain clearly what we perceive as the problem with said item;

(c) if possible, propose an improvement.

Such a procedure, in my experience, will be far more powerful as a
rebuttal or reaction, than a trite dismissal. The trite dismissal
exudes a very strong smell of arrogance, because it implies that the
explanation for the dismissal need not be given, all of
sufficient/worthy intelligence will immediately see it or already
know it. Moreover, if trite, the angle at which the dismissal is
being made can leave much ambiguity and uncertainty as to what aspect
of the item is being objected to.

I hope you will consider this agreement. My hand is outstretched
toward you in cyberspace, and I hope you will shake it.

In friendship,
Paul

--- In tuning-math@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

> (a) state that we disagree, perhaps "disagree strongly" with said
> item;
>
> (b) explain clearly what we perceive as the problem with said item;
>
> (c) if possible, propose an improvement.

I can't promise to always know what someone will take umbrage at, but I'll try to work more like this. In that spirit, can you explain if the 27-et hyperpythagorean system is positive, or something else?
Before I thought I understood the definition, but didn't like it, but now I don't know if it is talking about anything other than meantone vs schismic.

--- In tuning-math@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

>but I'll try to work more like this.

I think this will be helpful for everyone, and again I apologize for
my crankiness -- I got no sleep last night aside from a short piece
of music that came to me in a dream -- and departed my mind almost as
quickly.

>In that spirit, can you explain
>if the 27-et hyperpythagorean system is positive, or something else?

27-tET is considered a _triply positive_ system. See page 8 of
http://www.anaphoria.com/xen2.PDF . . .

>Hmmm...well, I suppose you know people say exactly the same sort
>of things about you. In fact, I think I've heard more about PE's
>arrogance than of GWS's.

Give it time! :)

Paul has trouble being wrong, but that's different than arrogance.
I think Paul is the antithesis of arrogant. He's extremely innocent
and honest, though this aspect may not come across the line very
well (I didn't realize it until I met him). It can be hard to
recognize in any case, but in all my years on this list I've seen
none with motives more pure than Paul Erlich.

I haven't felt any arrogance from you, either, Gene. Maybe a
little reluctance to read the citations, but I took this to be
either a time management decision, or maybe an attempt to keep
free of past mistakes; to 'play dumb' for the benefit of beginner's
luck, so to speak. Both seem reasonable to me. I have certainly
been amazed at the power of real mathematics, which I've never
really been exposed to before, outside of a few brief meetings with
David Rothenberg.

I'm really glad you're both here.

-Carl