Splinters

In Digest #794,

{Joseph Pehrson wrote...}
>Well, just (literally) in case everybody wants to know what's going
>on... like I did, I had no clue... Kraig Grady has started his OWN
>splinter tuning group "newjustintonation."

As David has pointed out, this group has been in existence for many months. I just subscribed, as I meant to before. I don't know if the 'wait for approval' is actually something from the list owner or an implementation (new) from eGroups to cut down on spam. I'll write Kraig and find out, as I would think exclusion would be, to say the least, a detriment to any group.

>I'm not quite certain that it is a good idea to "splinter" off from
>the main tuning list over disagreements in style and content, if that
>had anything to do with it.

I agree. However, there are people on this list that continually refer to diametrically opposed 'camps' of intonationalists (if I may use such a term). I find it tedious and a major distraction. Like a community this small needs to be ghetto-ized or something.

One other thing: you have mentioned recently about your being enamored of web-based use of the list, and (while it may have been an oversight) just today replied to a message by simply including the web link to the msg. What this does to any who *prefer* their email lists as god(s) intended them -- plain email -- I (and others) don't have a clue as to what one would be replying to in this case. I do a lot of work and downloading mail and reading it offline is the *only* remotely efficient way to run my life. I hope that even with web access to the list, people will utilize it in a manner to which most have been accustomed. To start with new modes of communication, when it is all so simple otherwise, risks another type of splinter. Not productive, IMHO.

>I'm more for "plurality" myself, and toleration of other peoples' opinions >and HEY, even PERSONALITIES!

Agreed.

>There have been onerous (one-groups, get it) postings from various people >from time-to-time, but "big deal." Like they say "get over it." Maybe I've >lived in New York too long, but it doesn't PHASE :) me at all, as long as >we're all learning something and at least trying to communicate.

Hey, I can't stand what I hear that they've done to Times Square, and I like NY with raw edges, thank you very much, but it does not excuse incivility. Some skins are thicker than others, and I don't think alternate tuning methodologies have to test shin thickness.

Anything else on this topic in general I'd be happy to discuss, email-wise, off list. Keep the signal-2-noise ratio up around here...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12619

(Sorry Jon!)

> One other thing: you have mentioned recently about your being
enamored of web-based use of the list,

Umm. Jon, it's simply since people have so many Web-links
nowadays... I have no idea what they're talking about if I'm not "on
line..." I'm not learning anything...

>and (while it may have been an oversight) just
> today replied to a message by simply including the web link to the
>msg. What this does to any who *prefer* their email lists as god(s)
>intended them -- plain email -- I (and others) don't have a clue
as to what one would be replying to in this case.

I know, and I really apologize for this. Both Joe Monzo and I have
been referencing messages this way. But, you see, for people using
"Web based" there is absolutely no way to figure out which "Digest"
it is. This is too bad that egroups doesn't include this in the
message postings in some way... like when a new Digest occurs... but
they DON'T ... so there is no way for me to find out... Otherwise I
would include both a message number AND a Digest Number!!! Very
sorry, but unless someone has a suggestion, I don't know what to do!!!

> Hey, I can't stand what I hear that they've done to Times Square,
and I like NY with raw edges, thank you very much, but it does not
excuse incivility.

I really haven't seen too much "incivility." More "insensitivity," I
would think... but most people seem to be able to work that out.

> Anything else on this topic in general I'd be happy to discuss,
email-wise, off list.

Fine, Jon. That's great. We have done that before!
__________ ____ __ __
Joseph Pehrson

[Joseph Perhson:]
>>I'm not quite certain that it is a good idea to "splinter" off from
>>the main tuning list over disagreements in style and content, if that
>>had anything to do with it.

[Jonathan Szanto:]
>I agree. However, there are people on this list that continually refer
>to diametrically opposed 'camps' of intonationalists (if I may use such
>a term). I find it tedious and a major distraction. Like a community
>this small needs to be ghetto-ized or something.

Quite true, but it's a tricky balance sometimes, because, like adaptive
tuning itself, the list has conflicting needs:

. the need to accept varying tastes among the diverse membership.

. the need to agree on a definition of terms so that any kind of
meaningful communication can take place.

This second, very real need, means that it's important not to shy away
from disagreements. When two schools have diverged, each claiming a
certain word to have its own meaning, it strikes me as fair enough for
each to argue that its interpretation could/should be accepted by the
list, with some other term to be used for the other school's definition
of the word.

Naturally, it is very helpful if each side is willing to be flexible
and to take, at least on this list, some other set of terms in specific
instances. Failing this, posts can be clarified by stating which
meaning is in use, as contrasted with which other meaning, for a given
term.

When tempers flare, it means we're human. It DOES make a lot of sense
to cool off before pressing the "Send" button, of course, but we've all
failed at times do follow this simple procedure (at least I have!). If
some list members feel they are better served by forming other groups,
so be it. My own preference is to stay with this list, rough and tumble
though it is.

JdL

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12634

My own preference is to stay with this list, rough and
tumble though it is.
>
> JdL

Hello John!

Not to spend much time on this... but my own feeling about the
"success" of this list... and it IS very successful in terms of
enthusiasm and number of posts is:

1) Actually the "rough and tumble" part of it... with exciting,
although sometimes exasperating disagreements and

2) The high intellectual content which is challenging to everybody...
a good portion of this being of a mathematical nature... although a
sizable percentage is not...
______ ____ ___ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

At 05:46 PM 9/10/00 -0700, Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:

>One other thing: you have mentioned recently about your being enamored of
>web-based use of the list, and (while it may have been an oversight) just
>today replied to a message by simply including the web link to the msg.
>What this does to any who *prefer* their email lists as god(s) intended
>them -- plain email -- I (and others) don't have a clue as to what one
>would be replying to in this case. I do a lot of work and downloading mail
>and reading it offline is the *only* remotely efficient way to run my life.

I find Usenet even more efficient.

1) I only download what I want to read. It saves me disk space. Our European
subscribers who pay based on volume could save money. They wouldn't have to
unsubscribe for heavy volume.

2) Messages are sorted by subject rather than being displayed in
chronological order. It's easier to follow discussions.

3) Although anyone can post, spam tends to be rare on scholarly newsgroups.

4) The archives at Deja seem easier to use than the current arrangement.

The current volume of traffic tests the capacity of this medium. Should we
switch?

-- CJ <http://www.rev.net/people/aloe/music/tuning.html>

ALOE@REV.NET wrote:

> The current volume of traffic tests the capacity of this medium. Should we
> switch?

No because now that Paul has started his own
Harmonic Entropy list, volume here has died
down to a reasonable stream of traffic.

Finally.

I don't know what the big fuss is. Years ago
the ambient music list had a lot of traffic.
Other lists grew out of it like the Eno, Bill
Laswell, Jon Hassell, Fax label and others.
All coexist peacefully.

And besides - I don't really like USENET.

harmony,
db

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

--- In tuning@egroups.com, ALOE@R... wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/13710

I have used www.deja.com with Usenet... but I can't see how it is
particularly more efficient than our current system. Maybe the
search
engine is a little bit better... but not dramatically.

Moving a discussion group is a major traumatic event... due to the
fact that all the participants have the old address. I think it
should only be done in an "emergency"... as in the case where the
Mills hosting went "belly up..."
____________ ___ __ _ _
Joseph Pehrson

>No because now that Paul has started his own
>Harmonic Entropy list, volume here has died
>down to a reasonable stream of traffic.

I'm on the new list, and I've yet to get a
single digest. A check over to the website
reveals... 14 messages so far. Whew, glad
that burden was lifted.

>Finally.

I'm still waiting for you to splinter off
and start a bitching list.

>I don't know what the big fuss is.

That's funny; you always seem to be at the
center of it.

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> >No because now that Paul has started his own
> >Harmonic Entropy list, volume here has died
> >down to a reasonable stream of traffic.
>
> I'm on the new list, and I've yet to get a
> single digest. A check over to the website
> reveals... 14 messages so far. Whew, glad
> that burden was lifted.
>
> >Finally.
>
> I'm still waiting for you to splinter off
> and start a bitching list.
>
> >I don't know what the big fuss is.
>
> That's funny; you always seem to be at the
> center of it.

Your idol Paul Elrich already asked the list
to stop posting about posting and he thought his
new splinter list was a good idea.

Keeping in mind that I'm dealing with a 20 something,
I ask you to let it go man. Get it?

later,
db

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm