I get the message!

I guess I'm a bit slow on the uptake, but I think I'm getting the
message now, from both Gene and Carl. If I may be allowed a little
exaggeration:

Dave, we don't want to know about any systematic naming schemes for
temperaments or commas. Stop spoiling our fun. We were having a fine
time making up silly names for everything we could churn out, until
you turned up.

Well, I shall go and leave you in peace.

Peer review? More like peer insult-exchange.

Gene,

I apologise again for the personal insult.

You said you did not call me names, and that's technically true.

However I pride myself on my teaching and writing ability (perhaps
mistakenly) as well as my system design ability, and so I'm afraid I
do take it as a personal insult when someone who hasn't even read my
article makes assumptions about what my method of exposition will be
and declares them "sloppy", using the word three times, no less.

You also said I was "going about it in a very, very bad way", and
implied that my readers would need a "secret decoder ring" to
understand my article. All without having read any of it.

/tuning-math/message/7236

I hope you can now understand why I found all this far more hurtful
even than being called an anal retentive.

But even if I felt insulted, I should not have responded in kind. I'm
sorry.

By the way, you probably don't realise that before you arrived,
practically _all_ the prime-exponent vectors we used were 2-free, and
no one had a problem with that.

Paul,

I certainly don't want you to use letters instead of names in those
wonderful diagrams. I'm just saying I think it has gone far enough,
and besides there is at least _some_ kind of logic to most of those names.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

hi Dave (and Gene and paul),

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...>
wrote:

> Gene,
>
> I apologise again for the personal insult.
>
> You said you did not call me names, and that's technically true.
>
> However I pride myself on my teaching and writing ability (perhaps
> mistakenly) as well as my system design ability, and so I'm afraid I
> do take it as a personal insult when someone who hasn't even read my
> article makes assumptions about what my method of exposition will be
> and declares them "sloppy", using the word three times, no less.
>
> You also said I was "going about it in a very, very bad way", and
> implied that my readers would need a "secret decoder ring" to
> understand my article. All without having read any of it.
>
> /tuning-math/message/7236
>
> I hope you can now understand why I found all this far more hurtful
> even than being called an anal retentive.

i must say that i found Gene's comment about the "secret
decoder ring" very funny and amusing. i realize it was
at your expense, Dave ... sorry, but i have to be honest
above all else, and i did get a laugh from it.

> But even if I felt insulted, I should not have responded in kind.
> I'm sorry.

that's beautiful. i really admire you for posting it
publicly here.

> Paul,
>
> I certainly don't want you to use letters instead of names
> in those wonderful diagrams. I'm just saying I think it has
> gone far enough, and besides there is at least _some_ kind
> of logic to most of those names.

one side of me really enjoys the whimsy of the names paul
has already coined, and the other side of me agrees with
you, Dave.

and i guess i also sense "some kind of logic", because i
know paul well enough to know that he wouldn't simply vent
his imagination on something like this without exercising
his powerful logical abilites too.

but i'm also anal-retentive enough to desire a nice
systematic naming for everything. (remember? ... i'm
the guy who wanted a tuning dictionary so badly that he
simply created it.)

-monz

>However I pride myself on my teaching and writing ability (perhaps
>mistakenly) as well as my system design ability,

I think you're a great teacher, writer, and system designer.

-Carl

hi Dave,

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
> > [Dave Keenan]
> > However I pride myself on my teaching and writing ability
> (perhaps mistakenly) as well as my system design ability,
>
> I think you're a great teacher, writer, and system designer.
>
> -Carl

i'll second that, particularly the "system design" part.

-monz