More hysterical name-calling from the ATL

Jacob asked a question that centered around why the ATL has fallen
silent.
As someone who was a member of the ATL back in 1993 until 1997,
when it degenerated into its current state of brain-death and
backbiting, I have some knowledge about that situation.
The reason the Alternative Wanking List has fallen silent is
that members of the lunatic fringe who waste their
lives with musically meaningless numerology like TOPS and
Blackjack and absolute pseudoscientific tripe like Gene "Woolly Headed
Numerology" Smith's website www.xenharmony.org have managed to wangle
moderator powers.
It's bad enough when you get a group of people pathologically
compelled to tell lies together on the same website. But when you give
'em censorship powers, that's pure poison.
Moderator powers have given members of the pseudoscience fringe
like Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith carte blanche to engage in
the sort of the hysterical name-calling and vicious lies he has just
slammed this forum with...
But wait.
It gets worse.
On the Alternative Lying List, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
Smith and his fellow mathturbators can also censor posts from
anyone who speaks up to use facts and logic to examine their laughably
false claims and expose their vacuous pseudoscience. Judging by what
happened when I told the truth about Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
Smith just now, you can figure the results on the ATL.
Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith and Paul "All Attacks, No
Facts" Erlich and Carl "All Idle Speculations, No Music" Lumma are
savagely cruel bigots who lie for sport. These members of the lunatic
fringe regard pseudoscientifc gibberish as an honorable profession.
Pathetic creatures like Smith and Erlich dote on character
assassination of the kind that would have made Senator Joseph McCarthy
cringe -- for them, name-calling is light entertainment. To a man,
they are practitioners of pseudoscience, to a man they are pervasively
ignorant of the basic elements of psychoacoustics and musicology. The
misnamed "moderators" of the ATL produce no music any reasonable
person would want to hear, and it's simple and easy for anyone with
elementary music or mathematical knowledge to show that their
numerology is both musically meaningless and mathematically trivial.
As a result, practitioners of musically meaningless numerology
like Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith and his ilk find themselves
with nothing to do but indulge in hysterical name-calling when faced
with facts and logic. These people have no discernible musical talent,
they have no concept whatever of the scientific method (Gene Smith's
methodology in dealing with tunings amounts of "It works for me" --
ask yourself if any reputable scientist would accept that as a
falsifiable test of a scientific hypthesis), these people have
produced no music theory at all (only laughably foolish medieval
number mysticism and vapid jargon which is without exception either
provably false or musically meaningless), and their entire lives seem
to boil down to shrieking insults at random strangers on the net.
Can anyone imagine anything more pathetic than the behavior of Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith and Paul "All Attacks, No Facts"
Erlich?
-----
If you want to know why I've abandoned the internet, Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's recent spasm of name-calling
offers us Exhibit One.
But Gene's attack of online Tourette's Syndrome is hardly an
isolated instance. You can find equally vicious personal attacks
devoid of musical information (just like Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith's recent tirade) by Lumma and Erlich and Szanto and
Smith and Beardsley and Rosati scattered through the ATL archives as
well as the metamusic forum. The viciousness of Gene Smith's behavior
since he became moderator has been the subject of considerable
discussion on metamusic. Smith's threats and bulling and name-calling
have made his name an epithet excremental and debased, and Smith's
behavior keeps getting worse. If you don't believe me, read comments
about Smith's verbal rampages by other ATL members.
Before abandoning the ATL, one microtonal composer described it as
a "snakepit." Before fleeing from the ATL, another microtonalist
called it "a cesspool of verbal attacks devoted to degradation and
personal destruction in the service of deluded pseudoscience."
That's why there's a serious debate among the genuine microtonal
community (which you will N*O*T find on-line) as to whether the ATL
should more properly be called "The Alternative Wanking List" or "The
Alternative Lying List."
Which is the major activity of the ATL?
Wanking?
Or lying?
Lying...
...Or wanking?
Those who describe the ATL as "a group of mathturbators" have
powerful evidence on their side.
Given the sheet vacuity and provable lack of musical content of
crackpot-fringe numerology like the swill at www.xenharmony.org, many
serious microtonal composers have contended that the ATL should be
called "The Alternative Wanking List." After all, mathturbators like
Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith have plunged so deeply into
pseudoscience with websites with www.xenharmony.org that they rival
ufology in sheer ludicrousness. Mathturbators like Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith have churned out such a Himalayan mountain of
musically meaningless gibberish like "vals" and "wedgies," that by
comparison with Gene Smith, L. Ron Hubbard looks almost like a
respectable scientific authority.
So there's strong evidence in favor of the assertion, by many
microtonalists, that the ATL should be called "The Alternative Wanking
List."
However, other serious microtonal composers have contended (and
with some merit) that self-deluded numerologists like Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith are not the whole story of the ATL.
They have pointed out that sadistic personal invective and envenomed
verbal abuse is the true purpose of the ATL, and that therefore the
ATL should actually be called "The Alternative Lying List."
Considering the sheer number of lies told in public on the ATL,
there's a great deal of evidence to support that line of thinking.
Most of the moderators of the current ATL lie and lie and lie and lie
and lie and lie and lie, over and over again. You only have to study
the archives of the ATL to realize the sheer number of lies told in
public by Jonathan Szanto, who has lied constantly and lied
energetically and lied with a vituperation and a sadism that truly
takes the breath away. Not only has Jonathan Szanto told lie after lie
after lie in public, he has lied about telling lies -- and then, when
called on his lies, he lies about having lied about having lied!
Clearly cases like Jonathan Szanto rise above the ordinary realm of
everyday lying into the empyrean range of the pathological. And here
we encounter a strange dreamworld indeed. Life for a pathological liar
must be incredibly weird. Since every word out of Jonathan Szanto's
mouth is a lie, can you imagine what it must be like for Szanto?
Just think of it... Szanto wakes up and probably finds himself
compelled to say "Well, at least I'm not awake." Then Szanto sees the
sun is shining and I imagine he has to say, "Darn, it's still night."
Then Szanto brushes his teeth and probably feels he has to murmur, "I
guess I don't have time to brush my teeth." Szanto gets dressed and
in all likelihood mutters to himself, "But I suppose I'll just have to
avoid getting dressed today."
And so on.
Someone who has lied and lied and lied and lied and lied, over and
over again in public, to the point where essentially everything that
dribbles out of his mouth is a lie, as Jonathan Szanto has done,
inhabits a special realm of pathology. The pathological liar, who
finds finds himself irresistably compelled to say the opposite of the
truth, is a specimen of human being with whom we seldom come in
contact...except on the internet.
Most often, pathological liars don't enjoy much success in life.
For the obvious reason: these sad twisted creatures quickly reveal
themselves as people who cannot be trusted, and everyone rapidly
learns that whatever comes out of their mouths is the opposite of the
documented facts. So they typically drift to the fringes of society.
In the real world, reality constantly trips up the pathological liar.
But on the internet, reality need not intrude.
As the New Yorker cartoon put it, "On the internet, no one knows
you're a dog."
Or a pathological liar.
People like Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith can quickly and
easily press a button to make reality disappear. Moderator powers give
them total censorship. Can you imagine how long I'd last on the
Alternative Lying List? Smith would've long since banned me and
censored my posts, since I use facts and logic together with common
sense to examine claims about microtonality. And facts and logic are
pure poison to people who practice pseudoscientific numerology, as
Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith does -- when faced with common
sense and a demand for hard evidence that his claims are true, Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith reacts like a vampire in a crucifix
factory.
And so, on the Alternative Lying List, the pathological liar
emerges as the supreme figure. Each of the moderators of the
Alternative Lying List finds himself compelled to lie and lie and lie
and lie and lie in public, over and over again, recklessly,
hysterically, with Joseph McCarthy-style venom and Nixonian
persistence.
We see an example of this kind of constant non-stop pathological
lying in Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's recent explosion of
invective on this forum.
Lies are the last resort of people who have run out of facts and
logic, and have no valid arguments and no evidence to offer. People
like Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, who have no facts and no
logic to back up their hysterical invective, naturally find themselves
reduced to telling lie after lie after lie in public.
What is the best response to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
Smith's lies?
Facts and logic.
Apply common sense and the test of reality to their claims.
It requires little effort and less intelligence to dissect Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's lies and reveal them for what they
are.
Let's apply common sense and ask "What is the evidence -- how do
we know Gene `Woolly-Headed Numerology' Smith's claims are true?
Let us apply facts and logic and use the test of reality on Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's hysterical invective:

"There's a lot of microtonal music out there. Some of it is
available for free on the web."

What I said was "There's tons of superb microtonal music out
there, virtually none of it available on the web."
My statement was and is factually correct. Compare the tiny little
list of online music resources compiled by Andrew -- then compare it
with the giant list of microtonal music on CD I compiled for the
Huyghens-Fokker list (but from which my name has been removed, as
usual).
For each of the on-line microtonal compositions listed by Andrew,
how many microtonal compositions can you find on my microtonal
discography at the Huyghens-Fokker website?
When we test Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's claim against
the facts, do Smith's assertions hold up? Or do the facts support my
statement that "there's tons of superb microtonal music out there,
virtually none of it available on the web"?
Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith lying? What do the facts
suggest?
Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith can quickly and easily prove
me wrong -- all he has to do is demonstrate with facts that he has a
minimal knowledge of the vast range of microtonal music on CD, as
opposed to the microtonal music on the web.
If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot prove by citing
simple facts that he has an adequate knowledge of the range of
microtonal music on CD, then a reasonable person must conclude that
Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is a liar.
Okay, Gene. Here's your chance to show us all how much you know
about what microtonal music is available on CD;
[1] In what tuning is the first track of Bill Wesley's microtonal
CD "For A Few Tones More"?
[2] In what tuning is the first track of Jeff Stayton's microtonal
CD "Industrial Raga"?
[3] In what tuning is the fifth track of my microtonal CD "Mclaren
- Microtonal Music Vol. 5"?
[4] In what tuning is the seventh track of Brink McGoogy's
microtonal CD "Beyond Eleventeenland"?
[5] In what tuning is the sixth track of Jonathan Glasier's
microtonal CD "The Microtonal Music Of Jonathan Glasier"?
[6] What instruments does Skip LaPlante use on the second track of
his first microtonal CD?
[7] What instruments does Skip LaPlante use on the fifth track of
his second microtonal CD?"
[9] How long is the third track of my microtonal CD "McLaren -
Microtonal Music Volume 3"?
[10] What tuning does Jim Horton use on the track "Simulated Winds
and Cries" of his microtonal CD of the same name?

Of course Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer any
of these simple questions, because Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
Smith has no discernible knowledge of the full range of microtonal
music available on CD. If he actually had even a minimal knowledge of
the microtonal music available on CD, he would recognize that his
statement is flatly false and contradicted by the documented facts.
And so Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith finds himself compelled
to lie ("There's a lot of microtonal music out there. Some of it is
available for free on the web.") rather than admit his appalling
ignorance.
Not content with just one lie, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
Smith needs to tell lie after lie after lie after lie, covering
himself with shame and turning his name into a lump of sewage.
Standard operating procedure for the Alternative Lying List... But
obviously behavior so pathological that it has driven away all the
competent practicing microtonalists from the Alternative Lying List.
Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's next assertion is:

"This does not mean it should be spat upon by the pompous and
arrogant merely because of that."

Let us examine the hard evidence. What does the evidence tell us?
What conclusion does a reasonable person draw from the evidence?
I have thus far constantly proposed "let us examine the hard
evidence." I have thus far constantly cited documented facts. Why is
saying "let us examine the hard evidence" pompous and arrogant?
Provide proof that saying "let us examine the hard evidence" is
pompous and arrogant, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or stand
revealed as a liar and a character assassin.
I have thus far in this post cited common sense as a guideline, as
opposed to vacuous numerology, number-mysticism, or old wives tales.
Provide proof that using common sense as a guideline is "pompous and
arrogant," Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or stand revealed as
a liar and character assassin.
When we examine Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's
assertions, what conclusion does a reasonable person draw?
Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith accurate and factual when
he describes my use of common sense as "pompous and arrogant"? Or is
Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling yet another lie ("This
does not mean it should be spat upon by the pompous and arrogant
merely because of that") to cover up his earlier lie ("There's a lot
of microtonal music out there. Some of it is available for free on the
web.")?
What does a reasonable person conclude from observing Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's behavior?
Does Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith tell the truth? Does he
cite documented facts?
If so, where are they?
Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith gives us no websites, no CD
titles, nothing at all. He cites no facts because he has no facts.
Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith tells lie after lie after lie in
public precisely because he has no facts, no evidence, no knowledge,
no competence, no expertise in the subject he purports to discuss. And
this is typical of the Alternative Lying List. Each of the moderators
reveals himself as arrogant as well as ignorant and incompetent in
even the most basic elements of microtonality, music theory, music
history, psychoacoustics, psychomusicology, acoustics and
ethnomusicology.
This is why the moderators on the Alternative Lying List find
themselves compelled to do nothing but lie and lie and lie and lie, as
Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has found himself compelled to
tell lie after lie after lie after lie here.
As someone who asserts (sans proof) that he has a PhD in
mathematics, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith ought to recognize
the inherent mathematical problem with telling lies. Each lie
typically requires two more lies to support it...and then each of
those lies demands two more, and so on.
Little knowledge of math is needed to recognize that such a
geometric progression soon grows insupportable. First one lie, then 2,
4, 8, 16, 32, soon 32768 lies, and on and on... The liar soon finds
himself with too few hours in the day to tell all the new lies
required to cover up his old lies and make them seem credible. Such is
the dilemma in which Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith now finds
himself, having told lie after lie after lie in public in response to
my factually accurate and provable correct post.
Of course we have barely scratched the surface of Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's lies and character assassination.
Proceeding to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's next
assertion, we have:

> How many of these people have websites?
>
> Zero. They're musicians, not web designers. Whenever you find a
> website about microtonal music, that's a sure sign you're dealing
> with somebody who doesn't compose any.

to which Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith responds:
"What arrogant, ignorant crap.'

Provide hard evidence that the microtonal musicians I cited have put
up websites showcasing their music, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
Smith, or stand revealed as a liar and a character assassin.
Of course Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith finds himself in
another bind, because he can't provide such hard evidence.
The hard fact is that Jonathan Glasier has no website devoted
specifically to his music because Jonathan Glasier is not a computer
person and doesn't know how to design a website. Likewise, Johnny
Reinhard has no website specically devoted to Johnny Reinhard's
microtonal music because once again Reinhard is not a computer person
and doesn't know how to design a website. Bill Wesley has no website
devoted specifically to his microtonal music because (as usual) Wesley
is not a computer person and doesn't know how to design a website.
Ditto for each of the microtonal composers I mentioned. Skip LaPlante
is not a computer person, he's a musician; Brink McGoogy is not a
computer person, he's a musician. And on and on -- in each case, you
find that if the person is a practicing musician, they usually don't
know how to design a website and don't have the computer expertise to
set up a website and encode MP3s and upload 'em. This might be
trivial to anti-musicians like Carl Lumma and Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith, but designing even the simplest website and
encoding and ftp'ing even the simplest mp3 is typically beyond the
skill-set of most practicing musicians. They're not computer people,
they're musicians.
So, once again, what does common sense tell us?
When we examine the facts, we find once again Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith's claims fall apart. SOP for the ALternative Lying
List moderators. When we count up the total number of names on my list
of microtonal musicians who have designed websites specifically
devoted to their own music, what do the facts tell us?
Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling the truth? If so,
where's the evidence?
Or does the evidence converge on the conclusion that Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is a liar and character assassin?
Each time we apply common sense to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
Smith's claims, what do we discover?
When Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith calls my application of
facts and logic to observable reality "arrogant, ignorant crap," is
Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling the truth? Or is Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling yet another lie?
Let us continue with our dissection of Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith's post -- how many lies did Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith tell in a single post? So far we've found three
lies, and that's just in the first two paragraphs. How many lies will
we discover all told in Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's post?
Bear in mind the geometric progression required by any liar, and
you'll understand how doomed the liar is when he ventures
online...unless he manages to wangle moderator powers, as Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has. Alas, Gene SMith has ventured
outside the cozy confines of the ALternative Lying List, and he cannot
censor my posts here. So now he's going to get a Drano high colonic of
facts and logic, and a brutal education in the penalties for telling
obvious lies in public.
---
When I pointed out "In the real world, the people who do, don't
talk...and the people who talk, don't do anything," Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith retorted:

"Ignorant crap."

Provide hard evidence to back up your claim, Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith, or stand revealed as a liar and a character
assassin.
I've composed 14 CDs full of audibly microtonal music. Except for
rare instances like this, I never have anything to do with the
internet or with cesspools of mindless numerology and hysterical
name-calling like the Alternative Lying List. Show us the great big
stack of CDs full of microtonal music Jonathan Szanto has composed --
where are they? Szanto has churned out many thousands of words on that
sinkhole of deluded folly, the Alternative Lying List, and it's easy
to prove it. Look at the recent ATL archives.
Now show us the evidence of all the posts I've made on the ATL, in,
oh, say, the last 5 years, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or
stand revealed as a liar.
Of course I've made none. Zero. Precisely because savagely cruel
math bigots like Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, who lie for
sport, have taken over the ATL.
Show us the evidence of all the CDs of microtonal music Jonathan
Szanto has released, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or stand
revealed as a liar.
Jeff Stayton has nothing to do with the internet because he has
described people like you, Gene, and posts like yours, as "the usual
bullshit and lies from the usual assholes who don't know their ass
from a hole in the ground about microtonality," so Jeff has made no
posts on the Alternative Lying List. Jeff Stayton has produced 5 CDs
of microtonal music, and Jeff Stayton also appears on 27 different
compilation CDs of microtonal music.
Carl "All Number Mysticism, No Music" Lumma has the single highest
post-count on the Alternative Lying List, with millions of words
authored online.
Show us the great big stack of 32 microtonal CDs Carl Lumma has
produced, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or stand revealed as
a liar and a character assassin.
Jonathan Glasier has described posts like yours with the phrase
"these people are talking out their asses, they don't have a clue
about microtonality," and he refuses to post on the ATL because people
like you dominate it with hysterical name-calling and vacuous
numerology. "These people have made a religion out of fifth-grade
arithmetic," Glasier has said.
Jonathan Glasier has released 2 CDs of microtonal music and he
appears on 17 other compilation CDs of microtonal music.
Now let us take Paul "All Attacks, No Facts" Erlich. Show us the
great big stack of microtonal CDs Erlich has released, Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or stand revealed as a liar and a
character assassin.
When we use common sense to examine the evidence using facts and
logic, what does a reasonable person conclude?
In each case, when we study a moderator of the Alternative Lying
List, does that person have a large number of CDs of microtonal music?
Or has that person in fact released no CDs of microtonal music at
all?
What do facts and logic suggest?

PAUL ERLICH -- 1 CD of microtonal music, millions of
words online

JEFF STAYTON -- 32 CDs of microtonal music, no words online.

CARL LUMMA - no CDs of microtonal music, millions of words
online.

JONATHAN GLASIER -- 19 CDs of microtonal music, no words online.

JONATHAN SZANTO -- no CDs of microtonal music, millions of words
online.

MCLAREN -- 14 CDs of microtonal and 22 compilation CDs of
microtonal music playing with other microtonalists, virtually
no words online

When we apply common sense and examine Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith's claims using facts and logic, do we find that Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is stating facts?
Or is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling yet another lie?
----
Now that Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has racked up 4 lies
in a row, let's move on to his next provably false claim.

When I pointed out the documented fact that "How many of the
above-named microtonal musicians have sprayed their music out on the
web for free? Try `none,' Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith
retorted:

"And this makes it better?"

Provide hard evidence that I contended the music of the people I
cited was "better" than the music of the arrogant incompetent ignorami
who abuse and degrade the Alternative Lying List as its moderators,
Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or stand revealed as a liar and
character assassin.
Of course Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith can't provide such
evidence, since I never said that. Once again, facts a logic lead us
to the conclusion that Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is
telling yet another lie.
We begin to sense a pattern here, do we not?
Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has lied and lied and lied
and lied in his recent post, while I have stated documented facts.
When we examine Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's claims
against the documented facts, each of his claims falls apart.
Meanwhile, when we examine my statements against the documented facts,
my statements typically hold up.
What does a reasonable person conclude about Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith? Is he a liar who finds himself compelled to tell
lie after lie after lie because he has no grasp of the facts and no
evidence to support his hysterical personal attacks?
Or is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith making factually
correct statements -- if so, why is his post totally devoid of facts?
What does common sense suggest?
Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith a liar and a character
assassin? Is he telling non-stop lies and using character
assassination because he has no facts and no evidence and no valid
arguments, and lies and name-calling are his last resort?
What conclusion does a reasonable person arrive at from studying
the evidence?
Let us continue using common sense to examine Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith's claims:
When I remarked "Does it occur to you that it might cost money to
host a website and let people download music?" Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith responded by claiming:

"Does it occur to you that the amount of money involved is small
potatoes?"

Let us use facts and logic to examine Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith's claim -- is it accurate?
What do the facts say?

Most web hosting service let us user put up X number of megs and
use Y number of gigs of monthly bandwidth for data transfer. An
examination of the fine print of the service plans of these web
hosting services reveals that the real cost comes from exceeding data
transfer charges.
A typical text-only website seldom has to worry about exceeding
the typical 5 gigs per month of data transfer; however, someone
offering data-intensive downloads, like mp3s, soon runs into the
bandwidth limit and starts paying 5 cents per meg overage.
Since Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith claims to be a
mathematician, let's do some elementary arithmetic -- what kind of
bandwidth fees does offering mp3s on your website potentially cost?
5 cents per meg for transfers over 5 gigs per months sounds good,
until your realize that a typical mp3 may run 2 to 8 megs. Let's
assume only 4 megabytes per mp3 and a reasonable number of mp3s of
your microtonal music on your website...say, 10. That's on the low
end, but it's still minimally adequate if you have an reasonable
number of microtonal CDs at all. I've put out 14 CDs of microtonal
music on CD, so 30 mp3 probably wouldn't be adequate -- but my case is
exceptional. For folks like Jeff Scott, who has put out 2 CDs of
microtonal music, 10 mp3s is probably more than adequate. Now let's
assume typical website traffic of 200 visitors per day. That's low,
but probably typical for something as esoteric as microtonal music.
Since the mp3s are free, let's further guesstimate that 1/3 of the
visitors will download 'em since they figure (as always), "Hey, free
stuff! Why not grab it?"
[(6000 visitors per month times 10 mp3s times 4 megs per mp3 times
33%) - 5 gigabytes] * 5 cents/megabyte = how much per month?

Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith claims (sans proof) to have a
doctorate in mathematics but apparently he can't manage to do simple
arithmetic. Let's do it for him: that's 75 gigabytes of data transfer
per month. Now multiply by 50 dollars (5 cents per meg for going over
the 5 gig per month data transfer limit = 5000 cents per gigabyte, or
50 dollars per gig) to get $3750 per month in data transfer surcharge
fees.
What does common sense suggest when we compare Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith's claim "Does it occur to you that the amount of
money involved is small potatoes?" against the facts?
Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's claim accurate?
Or is his assertion flatly contradicted by the facts, as usual?
Does a reasonable person conclude that the PhD in mathematics Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith can't do simple multiplcation and
reproduce the elementary calculation above? Or does a reasonable
person conclude that Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is telling
yet another lie to cover up his appalling ignorance?
Toward what conclusion does common sense impel us?
Moving on to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's next provably
false assertion, we arrive at:

"That's right, Carl Lumma hasn't produced a CD of microtonal music.
But he's spewed out millions of words," to which Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith responded:

"At least that means he has done something."

This is not strictly speaking a lie -- a substantial change of pace
for Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, and genuinely startling
given his rabid mad-dog behavior on the Alternative Lying List. As the
Senator Joseph McCarthy of microtonality, Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith takes us by surprise when something other than a lie
or a character assassination erupts from his mouth.
And yet, instead of being an outright lie, this is a classic
example of the logical error known as the non sequitur objection.
That's a surprise. We expect lies and not bad logic from Gene Smith,
the Senator Joseph McCarthy of microtonality.
Let us dissect Gene Smith's obvious logic error to get a sense of
its laughable foolishness. In debates, a person who has run out of
facts and logic and cannot offer any valid arguments or any evidence
in favor of his position will often resort to the "non-sequitur
objection." In this case, the non-sequitur objection is "At least
that means he has done something."
To see the utter vacuity of Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's
garbled logic and scrambled reasoning here, apply Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith's non-sequitur objection to any other example of
pro-and-con debate:
For instance, apply Gene's vacuous retort to the lament "It was
terrible that John Wilkes Booth shot President Lincoln."
To which Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith retorts:
"At least that means he has done something"

Does Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's retort make sense? Or
is it the kind of brain-damaged gibberish even a 7-year-old child
would laugh at?
We can test this hypothesis, since my neighbors have a 7-year-old
child who currently studied music and plays hopscotch in her driveway.
I sometimes see her on weekends when I get the mail.
So I ran Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's non-sequitur
objection past her in a few examples to get her reaction:

"Suppose I complain that WW I killed a lot of people, and someone
objects `At least that means they have done something,' -- does that
make sense?"

The neighbor's 7-year-old girl began giggling uncontrollably.

I tried another example on her:

"Suppose I say that the bacteria that caused Black Death were
deadly, and someone else responds `At least that means they have done
something,' -- what do you think of that?"

At this point the neighbor's 7-year-old daughter was laughing out
loud. When she stopped laughing, she said, "That's silly. Don't be a
dumb-head."

What does common sense suggest when Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith's arguments on the internet cause a 7-year-old child
to giggle uncontrollably?
Moving on from garbled reasoning and scrambled logic by alleged
PhD Gene Ward Smith back to his outright lies, we encounter Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's next assertion:

When I pointed out:
"Or you could always listen to that magnificent CD of microtonal
music by Jonathan Szanto available here:

"Whoops, Jonathan Szanto hasn't released any CDs of microtonal
music either."

Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith retorted:

"Gee, and I thought we were supposed to support "real musicians".
Jon doesn't count?"

Exactly. Jonathan Szanto doesn't count as a microtonal musician
because he does not compose microtonal music and he does not perform
microtonal music.
If you wish to disprove this statement of documented fact, Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, provide hard evidence showing that
Jonathan Szanto composes or performs microtonal music, or stand
revealed as a liar and a character assassin.
If Jonathan Szanto performs so much microtonal music, where are the
program notes for his performances?
There aren't any.
Szanto doesn't perform microtonal music.
If Jonathan Szanto has composed or performed so much microtonal
music, where are the great big stacks of CDs of his performances
and/or compositions?
There aren't any.
Jonathan Szanto does not compose microtonal music. Jonathan Szanto
does not perform microtonal music. The only connection Jonathan Szanto
has with microtonal music is that he hurls vicious invective at people
who do compose microtonal music.
Accordingly, Jonathan Szanto has less connection with microtonal
music than a cat has with calculus. The only real surprise is that
Szanto ever opens his mouth about microtonality, since he is so
obviously totally unqualified to say even word one about
microtonality. Yes, Szanto supposedly spent 2 years with Partch --
about that claim, Jonathan Glasier has remarked, "Szanto arrived late,
and his time with Partch was short." And since Szanto has has no
connection whatever with composing or performing any microtonal music
since 1987, Szanto's qualifications for saying anything about
microtonality are nil.
Szanto's group "Making Microtonal Music" should be called
"Mutilating Microtonal Music." It stands as a sinister monument to the
power of character assassination by an ignoramus pervasively
unfamiliar with even the most basic elements of microtonality, as
Szanto is, and apparently devoted to verbally brutalizing and
discouraging anyone who dares compose microtonal music.
What does common sense suggest when we subject Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith's claims to the test of facts and logic?
If Jonathan Szanto is so deeply involved composing and performing
microtonal music, where is the evidence of it?
If Jonathan Szanto is a microtonal musician, show us the evidence
-- where is it? Show it to us. Show us the great big stack of CDs of
microtonal music Szanto has performed.
Where are they?
Nowhere. They don't exist.
Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling the truth when he
implies that Jonathan Szanto is a microtonal musician? Or is he
telling yet another foolishly obvious lie?
Toward what conclusion do facts and logic impel us when we examine
Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's statements? Is Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling the truth? Or is he once
again telling lies and using character assassination to cover up his
gross ignorance?
Moving on to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's next
statement, we have

"Paul, Jon and Joe have all composed microtonal music. What,
exactly, is your claim to fame?"

Let us use facts and logic, as always, to test Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith's retort.
I compiled the bibliogragphy at the Huyghens/Fokker website. This
is actually only a small part of my scholarship. As it happens, this
bibliography is only the tail end of my article "A Brief History Of
Microtnoality In the 20th Century," which has been described as "THE
major piece of scholarship about the history of microtonality." Larger
and more comprehensive than any other scholarly resource documenting
microtonality in the 20th century, "A Brief History of Microtonality
Int he 20th Century" clicks in at well over 60,000 words and compares
well with a typical PhD thesis. Indeed, more than one academic has
remarked, "If I ever get into a position to do it, you deserve a PhD
on the basis of that scholarship alone."
It stands to reason that Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is
unfamiliar with such major scholarship about microtonality, since each
of Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's statements reveal not only
his ignorance of microtonality and his incompetence as a scholar, but
his overweening arrogance as well.
Of course "A Brief History Of Microtonality" is only a small part
of my scholarly output. I've translated part of Laurent Fichet's 1996
"Scientific Theories of Music In the 19th and 20th Centuries" as well
as other major scholarship including the article "Microtonality and
Psychoacoustics" and "A Survey Of Microtonality In America."
Naturally Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is not familiar
with these scholarly works either.
What does a reasonable person conclude?
I've also created an "introduction to Microtonality" CD that has
been used int he only academic courses taught in the United States on
microtonality.
Faced with this evidence, what does a reasonable person conclude?
Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith knowledgeable about the
state of the art in microtonal scholarship? Or is he too ignorant to
realize my major contributions, to incompetent as a researcher to
bother to look up this widely-available information, and too arrogant
to realize how ignorant and incompetent he is?
What does common sense suggest?
Moving on from my scholarship and pedagogy to my music, I have
produced 14 CDs of my own microtonal music and my music appears on 22
different compilation CDs created with other microtonal musicians.
I have composed more microtonal music in more tunings (JI, ET and
NJ NET) than other human being alive or dead, and enough people have
described my microtonal music as "the best microtonal music" they've
heard that this judgment cannot be dismissed entirely out of hand.
Here are some of the comments virtuoso performers and scholars and
professional musicians have made about my CDs of microtonal music:

"I listened to the music with total delight." -- Allen Strange,
former president of the Computer Music Association

"Some of the best microtonal music I've heard." -- Kris Peck

"Perfect music, perfectly recorded." -- Gennadiy Kurgin, dean of
the Ukraine school of Music and the Arts

"Mclaren is the only person who seems to compose serious microtonal
music -- the people on the ATL are just noodling around and I'm tired
of it." -- John H. Chalmers, editor of the microtonal journal
"Xenharmonikon."

"I love your music." -- Warren Burt, instructor at the University
of Urbana at Champaign in a course on microtonality

"These are masterful compositions." -- M. Joel Mandelbaum, emeritus
professor, Queens College

"The scope of your musical and technical imagination is amazing --
I really feel like I've gone through the mirror into a parallel
universe when I listen -- a hyperchromatic landscape that makes most
other musics pale in comparison." -- virtuoso microtonal guitarist
John Schneider

If this sounds like boasting...no, just the facts.
But you did ask.
By the way...how many virtuoso musicians or professional musicians
have described _your_ music as "the best microtonal music they've
ever heard," Gene?
Let me guess:
None.
We _do_ have a description of Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
Smith's music courtesy of Jonathan Szanto, however. Smith apparently
admires Szanto, so we should pay attention when Szanto discusses
Smith's music. Szanto recentrly described Gene Smith's music as a root
canal without anaesthesia. See recent posts on Making Microtonal
Music for details.
Moving on to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's next
assertion, we arrived at:

"Gene Ward Smith is also a better composer than you will ever be,
in his obviously far from humble opinion. That you are a microtonal
hack does not make you special."

Rather than dispute about what is obviously an unfalsifiable
personal opinion, we may quickly and easily reduce Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith's claim from a conveniently unfalsifiable belief to
a question of knowledge.
Instead of asking whether I am a good or bad composer, let us ask --
what si the hard evidence that Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith
knows anything at all about my music?
Logic tells us that if Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith does
not know anything about my music and has never heard my music, then he
must by definition be lying when he asserts that "Gene Ward Smith is
also a better composer than you will ever be."
Of course, as always we can apply facts and logic to test Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's claim against observable reality.
On my CD of microtonal music "McLaren - Microtonal Music Volume 1,"
what is the instrumentation of track 5?
If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
question, then the facts suggest that he has never even heard any of
my 14 CDs of microtonal music and as a consequence Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith is telling yet another lie, since he cannot possibly
presume to make statements about a composer whose music he has never
heard.
On my CD of microtonal music "McLaren - Microtonal Music Volume 2,"
how many tracks are there?
If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
On my CD of microtonal music "McLaren - Microtonal Music Volume 3,"
what musical form is employed in the second movement of the 15 tone
equal piano concerto?
If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
On my CD of microtonal music "McLaren - Microtonal Music Volume 4,"
how many different just intonation compositions appear?
If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
On my CD of microtonal music "McLaren - Microtonal Music Volume 5,"
what are the specific non-just non-equal-tempered tunings used?
If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
On my CD of microtonal music "McLaren - Microtonal Music Volume 6,"
how many tracks are there?
If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
On my CD "240 Piano Pieces - Volume 1," what are the equal tempered
tunings used?
If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
On my CD of microtonal music "240 Piano Pieces - Volume 2," how
many tracks are there?
If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
On my CD of microtonal music "240 Piano Pieces - Volume 3," what
musical form does track 9 use?
If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
On my CD of microtonal music "240 Piano Pieces - Volume 4," what
musical form does track 7 use?
If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
On my CD of microtonal music "240 Piano Pieces - Volume 5," what is
the relationship between the last composition on track 20 and the
first composition on track 21?
If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
On my CD of microtonal music "144 Of the World's Most Xenharmonic
Melodies," which instrumentation is used by the fifth track?
If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
On my CD of microtonal music "Beyond All Limits - Volume 1," which
instrumentation is used on track 11?
If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
On my CD of microtonal music "Beyond All Limits - Volume 2," what
JI limit is used on track 19?
When we examine Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's claims
against the evidence, what does a reasonable person conclude?
Is he knowledgeable about the subjects he purports to discuss? Or
he provably ignorant?
Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith a competent scholar? Or is
he forced to tell lies and use character assassination because of his
crass incompetence as a scholar?
Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith a person who tells the
truth? Or does he tell lie after lie after lie after lie online?
What does common sense inform us about a person who constantly tell
s lies? How is such a person common described?
lastly, we come to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's final
baseless assertions:

"*Everything* I write is microtonal, you baboon."

To paraphrase the Borg of Star Trek fame, "Insults are irrelevant."
Name-calling of the kind Gene Smith indulges in here ("you baboon")is
typically the last resort of someone who has run out of facts and
logic and has nothing but lies and invective left in a vain attempt to
distract us from the facts.
Instead of being distracted, let us center in on the facts. Where
is the hard evidence that any of the meantone tunings Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has wasted his life numerologizing
about on the Alternative Lying List can be objectively and verifiably
distinguished from a typical piano in 12 equal under objective blind
listening tests?
We need not respond to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's
hysterical name-calling here other than to point out the obvious
logical conclusion that if under objective listening tests Smith's
meantone tunings cannot be reliably distinguished from the tuning ona
typical piano tuned in 12 equal, then by definition worthless
numerolgoical swill like Smith's various 12-equal meantone tunings
cannot be called "microtonal."
In order to qualify as "microtonal," clearly a tuning must be
audibly distinguishable from 12. If it's not, then it's not
microtonal.
Where is the hard evidence from objective blind listening tests
proving that listeners can reliably hear a difference between Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's various numerological concoctions
and a typical piano in 12 equal?
There are none.
There is no evidence that Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has
ever conducted any objective blind listening tests capable of
falsifying the hypothesis that his numerological meantone tunings are
audibly different from 12 equal.
What does a reasonsable person conclude from an examination of Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's output?
Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith uses numbers to generate
tunings but he never bothers to test whether these tunings can be
audibly differentiated from 12 equal.
Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith uses the trappings of science
-- namely, equations, MAPLE, and lists of numbers -- but Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith systematically avoids and ignores the
actual scientific method -- namely, objective blind listening
experiments capable of falsifying an hypothesis.
When a person like Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith uses the
outward trappings of science but ignores and flagrantly traduces
against the scientific method, is this an example of valid science?
Or is it pseudo-science?
When we apply facts and logic to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
Smith's cumulative output on the Alternative Lying List, do we
discover that Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is a serious
researcher...or a deluded and muddle-headed pseudoscientists on the
level of the typical ufologist or astrologer?
When we examine www.xenharmony.org, do we find more scientific
content than in astrology? Or less?
If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's output on the web has
less scientific content than astrology, what does that tell us about
Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's standing as a scholar and as a
researcher?
Lastly, let us consider Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's
final assertion:

"What an imbecile."

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary levels of proof.
Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has made the claim that I am
mentally defective. That qualifies as an extraordinary claim.
Provide hard evidence that I am mentally defective, Gene
"Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or stand revealed as a liar and a
character assassin.
Hard evidence in this case, because of the extraordinary nature of
the claim, must rise to the same extraordinary level. Therefore we
will require Gene SMith to upload notarized copies of at least 3
(three) IQ tests showing that I am mentally defective (sub-70 IQ)
along with at least 1 notarized copy of an official court document
certifying me as mentally defective in a court proceeding. If such
court documents exist, they should be easy to find.
If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot provide the hard
evidence to back up his claim, what does a reasonable person conclude?
Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling the truth?
Or is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith a person who hurls
frantic lies and hysterical name-calling at anyone who uses facts and
logic to examine his laughably false claims about microtonality?

EXIT QUESTION:
What does a reasonable person conclude upon learning that a person
pathologically addicted to telling lies and using character
assassination online, as Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has
proven himself to be, is (savage joke of a word) "moderator" of an
online group on microtonality?
What do facts and logic tell us about a person who has demonstrated
such appalling ignorance and such shocking incompetence and such
startling arrogance as Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has, when
we learn that this rabid reincarnation of Senator Joseph McCarthy
actually _controls_ an online group allegedly devoted to discussing
microtonality?
Isn't that like putting John Wayne Gacy in charge of an online
group about child care?
Putting Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith in control of an
online microtonal discussion group is like putting Ted Bundy in
control of a group devoted to discussing dating young girls, isn't it?
Does this explain why all the competent knowledgeable microtonal
musicians have abandoned the Alternative Lying List as a hopeless
sinkhole of deluded folly exhibiting less scientific content than
Dianetics and offering less factually accurate information about
microtonal music than the Sears Catalog?
Does this explain why microtonal composer after microtonal composer
has described the ATL and its membership (like Gene "Woolly-Headed
Numerology" Smith) as "a bunch of kooks screaming lies" and "crackpots
spouting gibberish and wacked-out pseudoscience"?

maybe you should switch to decaf?

Dante

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xenharmonic [mailto:xed@...]
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 4:03 PM
> To: crazy_music@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cm] More hysterical name-calling from the ATL
>
>
> Jacob asked a question that centered around why the ATL has fallen
> silent.
> As someone who was a member of the ATL back in 1993 until 1997,
> when it degenerated into its current state of brain-death and
> backbiting, I have some knowledge about that situation.
> The reason the Alternative Wanking List has fallen silent is
> that members of the lunatic fringe who waste their
> lives with musically meaningless numerology like TOPS and
> Blackjack and absolute pseudoscientific tripe like Gene "Woolly Headed
> Numerology" Smith's website www.xenharmony.org have managed to wangle
> moderator powers.
> It's bad enough when you get a group of people pathologically
> compelled to tell lies together on the same website. But when you give
> 'em censorship powers, that's pure poison.
> Moderator powers have given members of the pseudoscience fringe
> like Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith carte blanche to engage in
> the sort of the hysterical name-calling and vicious lies he has just
> slammed this forum with...
> But wait.
> It gets worse.
> On the Alternative Lying List, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
> Smith and his fellow mathturbators can also censor posts from
> anyone who speaks up to use facts and logic to examine their laughably
> false claims and expose their vacuous pseudoscience. Judging by what
> happened when I told the truth about Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
> Smith just now, you can figure the results on the ATL.
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith and Paul "All Attacks, No
> Facts" Erlich and Carl "All Idle Speculations, No Music" Lumma are
> savagely cruel bigots who lie for sport. These members of the lunatic
> fringe regard pseudoscientifc gibberish as an honorable profession.
> Pathetic creatures like Smith and Erlich dote on character
> assassination of the kind that would have made Senator Joseph McCarthy
> cringe -- for them, name-calling is light entertainment. To a man,
> they are practitioners of pseudoscience, to a man they are pervasively
> ignorant of the basic elements of psychoacoustics and musicology. The
> misnamed "moderators" of the ATL produce no music any reasonable
> person would want to hear, and it's simple and easy for anyone with
> elementary music or mathematical knowledge to show that their
> numerology is both musically meaningless and mathematically trivial.
> As a result, practitioners of musically meaningless numerology
> like Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith and his ilk find themselves
> with nothing to do but indulge in hysterical name-calling when faced
> with facts and logic. These people have no discernible musical talent,
> they have no concept whatever of the scientific method (Gene Smith's
> methodology in dealing with tunings amounts of "It works for me" --
> ask yourself if any reputable scientist would accept that as a
> falsifiable test of a scientific hypthesis), these people have
> produced no music theory at all (only laughably foolish medieval
> number mysticism and vapid jargon which is without exception either
> provably false or musically meaningless), and their entire lives seem
> to boil down to shrieking insults at random strangers on the net.
> Can anyone imagine anything more pathetic than the behavior of Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith and Paul "All Attacks, No Facts"
> Erlich?
> -----
> If you want to know why I've abandoned the internet, Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's recent spasm of name-calling
> offers us Exhibit One.
> But Gene's attack of online Tourette's Syndrome is hardly an
> isolated instance. You can find equally vicious personal attacks
> devoid of musical information (just like Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's recent tirade) by Lumma and Erlich and Szanto and
> Smith and Beardsley and Rosati scattered through the ATL archives as
> well as the metamusic forum. The viciousness of Gene Smith's behavior
> since he became moderator has been the subject of considerable
> discussion on metamusic. Smith's threats and bulling and name-calling
> have made his name an epithet excremental and debased, and Smith's
> behavior keeps getting worse. If you don't believe me, read comments
> about Smith's verbal rampages by other ATL members.
> Before abandoning the ATL, one microtonal composer described it as
> a "snakepit." Before fleeing from the ATL, another microtonalist
> called it "a cesspool of verbal attacks devoted to degradation and
> personal destruction in the service of deluded pseudoscience."
> That's why there's a serious debate among the genuine microtonal
> community (which you will N*O*T find on-line) as to whether the ATL
> should more properly be called "The Alternative Wanking List" or "The
> Alternative Lying List."
> Which is the major activity of the ATL?
> Wanking?
> Or lying?
> Lying...
> ...Or wanking?
> Those who describe the ATL as "a group of mathturbators" have
> powerful evidence on their side.
> Given the sheet vacuity and provable lack of musical content of
> crackpot-fringe numerology like the swill at www.xenharmony.org, many
> serious microtonal composers have contended that the ATL should be
> called "The Alternative Wanking List." After all, mathturbators like
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith have plunged so deeply into
> pseudoscience with websites with www.xenharmony.org that they rival
> ufology in sheer ludicrousness. Mathturbators like Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith have churned out such a Himalayan mountain of
> musically meaningless gibberish like "vals" and "wedgies," that by
> comparison with Gene Smith, L. Ron Hubbard looks almost like a
> respectable scientific authority.
> So there's strong evidence in favor of the assertion, by many
> microtonalists, that the ATL should be called "The Alternative Wanking
> List."
> However, other serious microtonal composers have contended (and
> with some merit) that self-deluded numerologists like Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith are not the whole story of the ATL.
> They have pointed out that sadistic personal invective and envenomed
> verbal abuse is the true purpose of the ATL, and that therefore the
> ATL should actually be called "The Alternative Lying List."
> Considering the sheer number of lies told in public on the ATL,
> there's a great deal of evidence to support that line of thinking.
> Most of the moderators of the current ATL lie and lie and lie and lie
> and lie and lie and lie, over and over again. You only have to study
> the archives of the ATL to realize the sheer number of lies told in
> public by Jonathan Szanto, who has lied constantly and lied
> energetically and lied with a vituperation and a sadism that truly
> takes the breath away. Not only has Jonathan Szanto told lie after lie
> after lie in public, he has lied about telling lies -- and then, when
> called on his lies, he lies about having lied about having lied!
> Clearly cases like Jonathan Szanto rise above the ordinary realm of
> everyday lying into the empyrean range of the pathological. And here
> we encounter a strange dreamworld indeed. Life for a pathological liar
> must be incredibly weird. Since every word out of Jonathan Szanto's
> mouth is a lie, can you imagine what it must be like for Szanto?
> Just think of it... Szanto wakes up and probably finds himself
> compelled to say "Well, at least I'm not awake." Then Szanto sees the
> sun is shining and I imagine he has to say, "Darn, it's still night."
> Then Szanto brushes his teeth and probably feels he has to murmur, "I
> guess I don't have time to brush my teeth." Szanto gets dressed and
> in all likelihood mutters to himself, "But I suppose I'll just have to
> avoid getting dressed today."
> And so on.
> Someone who has lied and lied and lied and lied and lied, over and
> over again in public, to the point where essentially everything that
> dribbles out of his mouth is a lie, as Jonathan Szanto has done,
> inhabits a special realm of pathology. The pathological liar, who
> finds finds himself irresistably compelled to say the opposite of the
> truth, is a specimen of human being with whom we seldom come in
> contact...except on the internet.
> Most often, pathological liars don't enjoy much success in life.
> For the obvious reason: these sad twisted creatures quickly reveal
> themselves as people who cannot be trusted, and everyone rapidly
> learns that whatever comes out of their mouths is the opposite of the
> documented facts. So they typically drift to the fringes of society.
> In the real world, reality constantly trips up the pathological liar.
> But on the internet, reality need not intrude.
> As the New Yorker cartoon put it, "On the internet, no one knows
> you're a dog."
> Or a pathological liar.
> People like Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith can quickly and
> easily press a button to make reality disappear. Moderator powers give
> them total censorship. Can you imagine how long I'd last on the
> Alternative Lying List? Smith would've long since banned me and
> censored my posts, since I use facts and logic together with common
> sense to examine claims about microtonality. And facts and logic are
> pure poison to people who practice pseudoscientific numerology, as
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith does -- when faced with common
> sense and a demand for hard evidence that his claims are true, Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith reacts like a vampire in a crucifix
> factory.
> And so, on the Alternative Lying List, the pathological liar
> emerges as the supreme figure. Each of the moderators of the
> Alternative Lying List finds himself compelled to lie and lie and lie
> and lie and lie in public, over and over again, recklessly,
> hysterically, with Joseph McCarthy-style venom and Nixonian
> persistence.
> We see an example of this kind of constant non-stop pathological
> lying in Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's recent explosion of
> invective on this forum.
> Lies are the last resort of people who have run out of facts and
> logic, and have no valid arguments and no evidence to offer. People
> like Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, who have no facts and no
> logic to back up their hysterical invective, naturally find themselves
> reduced to telling lie after lie after lie in public.
> What is the best response to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
> Smith's lies?
> Facts and logic.
> Apply common sense and the test of reality to their claims.
> It requires little effort and less intelligence to dissect Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's lies and reveal them for what they
> are.
> Let's apply common sense and ask "What is the evidence -- how do
> we know Gene `Woolly-Headed Numerology' Smith's claims are true?
> Let us apply facts and logic and use the test of reality on Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's hysterical invective:
>
> "There's a lot of microtonal music out there. Some of it is
> available for free on the web."
>
> What I said was "There's tons of superb microtonal music out
> there, virtually none of it available on the web."
> My statement was and is factually correct. Compare the tiny little
> list of online music resources compiled by Andrew -- then compare it
> with the giant list of microtonal music on CD I compiled for the
> Huyghens-Fokker list (but from which my name has been removed, as
> usual).
> For each of the on-line microtonal compositions listed by Andrew,
> how many microtonal compositions can you find on my microtonal
> discography at the Huyghens-Fokker website?
> When we test Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's claim against
> the facts, do Smith's assertions hold up? Or do the facts support my
> statement that "there's tons of superb microtonal music out there,
> virtually none of it available on the web"?
> Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith lying? What do the facts
> suggest?
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith can quickly and easily prove
> me wrong -- all he has to do is demonstrate with facts that he has a
> minimal knowledge of the vast range of microtonal music on CD, as
> opposed to the microtonal music on the web.
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot prove by citing
> simple facts that he has an adequate knowledge of the range of
> microtonal music on CD, then a reasonable person must conclude that
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is a liar.
> Okay, Gene. Here's your chance to show us all how much you know
> about what microtonal music is available on CD;
> [1] In what tuning is the first track of Bill Wesley's microtonal
> CD "For A Few Tones More"?
> [2] In what tuning is the first track of Jeff Stayton's microtonal
> CD "Industrial Raga"?
> [3] In what tuning is the fifth track of my microtonal CD "Mclaren
> - Microtonal Music Vol. 5"?
> [4] In what tuning is the seventh track of Brink McGoogy's
> microtonal CD "Beyond Eleventeenland"?
> [5] In what tuning is the sixth track of Jonathan Glasier's
> microtonal CD "The Microtonal Music Of Jonathan Glasier"?
> [6] What instruments does Skip LaPlante use on the second track of
> his first microtonal CD?
> [7] What instruments does Skip LaPlante use on the fifth track of
> his second microtonal CD?"
> [9] How long is the third track of my microtonal CD "McLaren -
> Microtonal Music Volume 3"?
> [10] What tuning does Jim Horton use on the track "Simulated Winds
> and Cries" of his microtonal CD of the same name?
>
> Of course Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer any
> of these simple questions, because Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
> Smith has no discernible knowledge of the full range of microtonal
> music available on CD. If he actually had even a minimal knowledge of
> the microtonal music available on CD, he would recognize that his
> statement is flatly false and contradicted by the documented facts.
> And so Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith finds himself compelled
> to lie ("There's a lot of microtonal music out there. Some of it is
> available for free on the web.") rather than admit his appalling
> ignorance.
> Not content with just one lie, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
> Smith needs to tell lie after lie after lie after lie, covering
> himself with shame and turning his name into a lump of sewage.
> Standard operating procedure for the Alternative Lying List... But
> obviously behavior so pathological that it has driven away all the
> competent practicing microtonalists from the Alternative Lying List.
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's next assertion is:
>
> "This does not mean it should be spat upon by the pompous and
> arrogant merely because of that."
>
> Let us examine the hard evidence. What does the evidence tell us?
> What conclusion does a reasonable person draw from the evidence?
> I have thus far constantly proposed "let us examine the hard
> evidence." I have thus far constantly cited documented facts. Why is
> saying "let us examine the hard evidence" pompous and arrogant?
> Provide proof that saying "let us examine the hard evidence" is
> pompous and arrogant, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or stand
> revealed as a liar and a character assassin.
> I have thus far in this post cited common sense as a guideline, as
> opposed to vacuous numerology, number-mysticism, or old wives tales.
> Provide proof that using common sense as a guideline is "pompous and
> arrogant," Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or stand revealed as
> a liar and character assassin.
> When we examine Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's
> assertions, what conclusion does a reasonable person draw?
> Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith accurate and factual when
> he describes my use of common sense as "pompous and arrogant"? Or is
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling yet another lie ("This
> does not mean it should be spat upon by the pompous and arrogant
> merely because of that") to cover up his earlier lie ("There's a lot
> of microtonal music out there. Some of it is available for free on the
> web.")?
> What does a reasonable person conclude from observing Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's behavior?
> Does Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith tell the truth? Does he
> cite documented facts?
> If so, where are they?
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith gives us no websites, no CD
> titles, nothing at all. He cites no facts because he has no facts.
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith tells lie after lie after lie in
> public precisely because he has no facts, no evidence, no knowledge,
> no competence, no expertise in the subject he purports to discuss. And
> this is typical of the Alternative Lying List. Each of the moderators
> reveals himself as arrogant as well as ignorant and incompetent in
> even the most basic elements of microtonality, music theory, music
> history, psychoacoustics, psychomusicology, acoustics and
> ethnomusicology.
> This is why the moderators on the Alternative Lying List find
> themselves compelled to do nothing but lie and lie and lie and lie, as
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has found himself compelled to
> tell lie after lie after lie after lie here.
> As someone who asserts (sans proof) that he has a PhD in
> mathematics, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith ought to recognize
> the inherent mathematical problem with telling lies. Each lie
> typically requires two more lies to support it...and then each of
> those lies demands two more, and so on.
> Little knowledge of math is needed to recognize that such a
> geometric progression soon grows insupportable. First one lie, then 2,
> 4, 8, 16, 32, soon 32768 lies, and on and on... The liar soon finds
> himself with too few hours in the day to tell all the new lies
> required to cover up his old lies and make them seem credible. Such is
> the dilemma in which Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith now finds
> himself, having told lie after lie after lie in public in response to
> my factually accurate and provable correct post.
> Of course we have barely scratched the surface of Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's lies and character assassination.
> Proceeding to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's next
> assertion, we have:
>
> > How many of these people have websites?
> >
> > Zero. They're musicians, not web designers. Whenever you find a
> > website about microtonal music, that's a sure sign you're dealing
> > with somebody who doesn't compose any.
>
> to which Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith responds:
> "What arrogant, ignorant crap.'
>
> Provide hard evidence that the microtonal musicians I cited have put
> up websites showcasing their music, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
> Smith, or stand revealed as a liar and a character assassin.
> Of course Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith finds himself in
> another bind, because he can't provide such hard evidence.
> The hard fact is that Jonathan Glasier has no website devoted
> specifically to his music because Jonathan Glasier is not a computer
> person and doesn't know how to design a website. Likewise, Johnny
> Reinhard has no website specically devoted to Johnny Reinhard's
> microtonal music because once again Reinhard is not a computer person
> and doesn't know how to design a website. Bill Wesley has no website
> devoted specifically to his microtonal music because (as usual) Wesley
> is not a computer person and doesn't know how to design a website.
> Ditto for each of the microtonal composers I mentioned. Skip LaPlante
> is not a computer person, he's a musician; Brink McGoogy is not a
> computer person, he's a musician. And on and on -- in each case, you
> find that if the person is a practicing musician, they usually don't
> know how to design a website and don't have the computer expertise to
> set up a website and encode MP3s and upload 'em. This might be
> trivial to anti-musicians like Carl Lumma and Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith, but designing even the simplest website and
> encoding and ftp'ing even the simplest mp3 is typically beyond the
> skill-set of most practicing musicians. They're not computer people,
> they're musicians.
> So, once again, what does common sense tell us?
> When we examine the facts, we find once again Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's claims fall apart. SOP for the ALternative Lying
> List moderators. When we count up the total number of names on my list
> of microtonal musicians who have designed websites specifically
> devoted to their own music, what do the facts tell us?
> Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling the truth? If so,
> where's the evidence?
> Or does the evidence converge on the conclusion that Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is a liar and character assassin?
> Each time we apply common sense to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
> Smith's claims, what do we discover?
> When Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith calls my application of
> facts and logic to observable reality "arrogant, ignorant crap," is
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling the truth? Or is Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling yet another lie?
> Let us continue with our dissection of Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's post -- how many lies did Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith tell in a single post? So far we've found three
> lies, and that's just in the first two paragraphs. How many lies will
> we discover all told in Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's post?
> Bear in mind the geometric progression required by any liar, and
> you'll understand how doomed the liar is when he ventures
> online...unless he manages to wangle moderator powers, as Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has. Alas, Gene SMith has ventured
> outside the cozy confines of the ALternative Lying List, and he cannot
> censor my posts here. So now he's going to get a Drano high colonic of
> facts and logic, and a brutal education in the penalties for telling
> obvious lies in public.
> ---
> When I pointed out "In the real world, the people who do, don't
> talk...and the people who talk, don't do anything," Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith retorted:
>
> "Ignorant crap."
>
> Provide hard evidence to back up your claim, Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith, or stand revealed as a liar and a character
> assassin.
> I've composed 14 CDs full of audibly microtonal music. Except for
> rare instances like this, I never have anything to do with the
> internet or with cesspools of mindless numerology and hysterical
> name-calling like the Alternative Lying List. Show us the great big
> stack of CDs full of microtonal music Jonathan Szanto has composed --
> where are they? Szanto has churned out many thousands of words on that
> sinkhole of deluded folly, the Alternative Lying List, and it's easy
> to prove it. Look at the recent ATL archives.
> Now show us the evidence of all the posts I've made on the ATL, in,
> oh, say, the last 5 years, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or
> stand revealed as a liar.
> Of course I've made none. Zero. Precisely because savagely cruel
> math bigots like Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, who lie for
> sport, have taken over the ATL.
> Show us the evidence of all the CDs of microtonal music Jonathan
> Szanto has released, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or stand
> revealed as a liar.
> Jeff Stayton has nothing to do with the internet because he has
> described people like you, Gene, and posts like yours, as "the usual
> bullshit and lies from the usual assholes who don't know their ass
> from a hole in the ground about microtonality," so Jeff has made no
> posts on the Alternative Lying List. Jeff Stayton has produced 5 CDs
> of microtonal music, and Jeff Stayton also appears on 27 different
> compilation CDs of microtonal music.
> Carl "All Number Mysticism, No Music" Lumma has the single highest
> post-count on the Alternative Lying List, with millions of words
> authored online.
> Show us the great big stack of 32 microtonal CDs Carl Lumma has
> produced, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or stand revealed as
> a liar and a character assassin.
> Jonathan Glasier has described posts like yours with the phrase
> "these people are talking out their asses, they don't have a clue
> about microtonality," and he refuses to post on the ATL because people
> like you dominate it with hysterical name-calling and vacuous
> numerology. "These people have made a religion out of fifth-grade
> arithmetic," Glasier has said.
> Jonathan Glasier has released 2 CDs of microtonal music and he
> appears on 17 other compilation CDs of microtonal music.
> Now let us take Paul "All Attacks, No Facts" Erlich. Show us the
> great big stack of microtonal CDs Erlich has released, Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or stand revealed as a liar and a
> character assassin.
> When we use common sense to examine the evidence using facts and
> logic, what does a reasonable person conclude?
> In each case, when we study a moderator of the Alternative Lying
> List, does that person have a large number of CDs of microtonal music?
> Or has that person in fact released no CDs of microtonal music at
> all?
> What do facts and logic suggest?
>
> PAUL ERLICH -- 1 CD of microtonal music, millions of
> words online
>
> JEFF STAYTON -- 32 CDs of microtonal music, no words online.
>
> CARL LUMMA - no CDs of microtonal music, millions of words
> online.
>
> JONATHAN GLASIER -- 19 CDs of microtonal music, no words online.
>
> JONATHAN SZANTO -- no CDs of microtonal music, millions of words
> online.
>
> MCLAREN -- 14 CDs of microtonal and 22 compilation CDs of
> microtonal music playing with other microtonalists, virtually
> no words online
>
> When we apply common sense and examine Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's claims using facts and logic, do we find that Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is stating facts?
> Or is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling yet another lie?
> ----
> Now that Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has racked up 4 lies
> in a row, let's move on to his next provably false claim.
>
> When I pointed out the documented fact that "How many of the
> above-named microtonal musicians have sprayed their music out on the
> web for free? Try `none,' Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith
> retorted:
>
> "And this makes it better?"
>
> Provide hard evidence that I contended the music of the people I
> cited was "better" than the music of the arrogant incompetent ignorami
> who abuse and degrade the Alternative Lying List as its moderators,
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or stand revealed as a liar and
> character assassin.
> Of course Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith can't provide such
> evidence, since I never said that. Once again, facts a logic lead us
> to the conclusion that Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is
> telling yet another lie.
> We begin to sense a pattern here, do we not?
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has lied and lied and lied
> and lied in his recent post, while I have stated documented facts.
> When we examine Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's claims
> against the documented facts, each of his claims falls apart.
> Meanwhile, when we examine my statements against the documented facts,
> my statements typically hold up.
> What does a reasonable person conclude about Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith? Is he a liar who finds himself compelled to tell
> lie after lie after lie because he has no grasp of the facts and no
> evidence to support his hysterical personal attacks?
> Or is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith making factually
> correct statements -- if so, why is his post totally devoid of facts?
> What does common sense suggest?
> Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith a liar and a character
> assassin? Is he telling non-stop lies and using character
> assassination because he has no facts and no evidence and no valid
> arguments, and lies and name-calling are his last resort?
> What conclusion does a reasonable person arrive at from studying
> the evidence?
> Let us continue using common sense to examine Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's claims:
> When I remarked "Does it occur to you that it might cost money to
> host a website and let people download music?" Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith responded by claiming:
>
> "Does it occur to you that the amount of money involved is small
> potatoes?"
>
> Let us use facts and logic to examine Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's claim -- is it accurate?
> What do the facts say?
>
> Most web hosting service let us user put up X number of megs and
> use Y number of gigs of monthly bandwidth for data transfer. An
> examination of the fine print of the service plans of these web
> hosting services reveals that the real cost comes from exceeding data
> transfer charges.
> A typical text-only website seldom has to worry about exceeding
> the typical 5 gigs per month of data transfer; however, someone
> offering data-intensive downloads, like mp3s, soon runs into the
> bandwidth limit and starts paying 5 cents per meg overage.
> Since Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith claims to be a
> mathematician, let's do some elementary arithmetic -- what kind of
> bandwidth fees does offering mp3s on your website potentially cost?
> 5 cents per meg for transfers over 5 gigs per months sounds good,
> until your realize that a typical mp3 may run 2 to 8 megs. Let's
> assume only 4 megabytes per mp3 and a reasonable number of mp3s of
> your microtonal music on your website...say, 10. That's on the low
> end, but it's still minimally adequate if you have an reasonable
> number of microtonal CDs at all. I've put out 14 CDs of microtonal
> music on CD, so 30 mp3 probably wouldn't be adequate -- but my case is
> exceptional. For folks like Jeff Scott, who has put out 2 CDs of
> microtonal music, 10 mp3s is probably more than adequate. Now let's
> assume typical website traffic of 200 visitors per day. That's low,
> but probably typical for something as esoteric as microtonal music.
> Since the mp3s are free, let's further guesstimate that 1/3 of the
> visitors will download 'em since they figure (as always), "Hey, free
> stuff! Why not grab it?"
> [(6000 visitors per month times 10 mp3s times 4 megs per mp3 times
> 33%) - 5 gigabytes] * 5 cents/megabyte = how much per month?
>
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith claims (sans proof) to have a
> doctorate in mathematics but apparently he can't manage to do simple
> arithmetic. Let's do it for him: that's 75 gigabytes of data transfer
> per month. Now multiply by 50 dollars (5 cents per meg for going over
> the 5 gig per month data transfer limit = 5000 cents per gigabyte, or
> 50 dollars per gig) to get $3750 per month in data transfer surcharge
> fees.
> What does common sense suggest when we compare Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's claim "Does it occur to you that the amount of
> money involved is small potatoes?" against the facts?
> Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's claim accurate?
> Or is his assertion flatly contradicted by the facts, as usual?
> Does a reasonable person conclude that the PhD in mathematics Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith can't do simple multiplcation and
> reproduce the elementary calculation above? Or does a reasonable
> person conclude that Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is telling
> yet another lie to cover up his appalling ignorance?
> Toward what conclusion does common sense impel us?
> Moving on to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's next provably
> false assertion, we arrive at:
>
> "That's right, Carl Lumma hasn't produced a CD of microtonal music.
> But he's spewed out millions of words," to which Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith responded:
>
> "At least that means he has done something."
>
> This is not strictly speaking a lie -- a substantial change of pace
> for Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, and genuinely startling
> given his rabid mad-dog behavior on the Alternative Lying List. As the
> Senator Joseph McCarthy of microtonality, Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith takes us by surprise when something other than a lie
> or a character assassination erupts from his mouth.
> And yet, instead of being an outright lie, this is a classic
> example of the logical error known as the non sequitur objection.
> That's a surprise. We expect lies and not bad logic from Gene Smith,
> the Senator Joseph McCarthy of microtonality.
> Let us dissect Gene Smith's obvious logic error to get a sense of
> its laughable foolishness. In debates, a person who has run out of
> facts and logic and cannot offer any valid arguments or any evidence
> in favor of his position will often resort to the "non-sequitur
> objection." In this case, the non-sequitur objection is "At least
> that means he has done something."
> To see the utter vacuity of Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's
> garbled logic and scrambled reasoning here, apply Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's non-sequitur objection to any other example of
> pro-and-con debate:
> For instance, apply Gene's vacuous retort to the lament "It was
> terrible that John Wilkes Booth shot President Lincoln."
> To which Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith retorts:
> "At least that means he has done something"
>
> Does Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's retort make sense? Or
> is it the kind of brain-damaged gibberish even a 7-year-old child
> would laugh at?
> We can test this hypothesis, since my neighbors have a 7-year-old
> child who currently studied music and plays hopscotch in her driveway.
> I sometimes see her on weekends when I get the mail.
> So I ran Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's non-sequitur
> objection past her in a few examples to get her reaction:
>
> "Suppose I complain that WW I killed a lot of people, and someone
> objects `At least that means they have done something,' -- does that
> make sense?"
>
> The neighbor's 7-year-old girl began giggling uncontrollably.
>
> I tried another example on her:
>
> "Suppose I say that the bacteria that caused Black Death were
> deadly, and someone else responds `At least that means they have done
> something,' -- what do you think of that?"
>
> At this point the neighbor's 7-year-old daughter was laughing out
> loud. When she stopped laughing, she said, "That's silly. Don't be a
> dumb-head."
>
> What does common sense suggest when Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's arguments on the internet cause a 7-year-old child
> to giggle uncontrollably?
> Moving on from garbled reasoning and scrambled logic by alleged
> PhD Gene Ward Smith back to his outright lies, we encounter Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's next assertion:
>
> When I pointed out:
> "Or you could always listen to that magnificent CD of microtonal
> music by Jonathan Szanto available here:
>
> "Whoops, Jonathan Szanto hasn't released any CDs of microtonal
> music either."
>
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith retorted:
>
> "Gee, and I thought we were supposed to support "real musicians".
> Jon doesn't count?"
>
> Exactly. Jonathan Szanto doesn't count as a microtonal musician
> because he does not compose microtonal music and he does not perform
> microtonal music.
> If you wish to disprove this statement of documented fact, Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, provide hard evidence showing that
> Jonathan Szanto composes or performs microtonal music, or stand
> revealed as a liar and a character assassin.
> If Jonathan Szanto performs so much microtonal music, where are the
> program notes for his performances?
> There aren't any.
> Szanto doesn't perform microtonal music.
> If Jonathan Szanto has composed or performed so much microtonal
> music, where are the great big stacks of CDs of his performances
> and/or compositions?
> There aren't any.
> Jonathan Szanto does not compose microtonal music. Jonathan Szanto
> does not perform microtonal music. The only connection Jonathan Szanto
> has with microtonal music is that he hurls vicious invective at people
> who do compose microtonal music.
> Accordingly, Jonathan Szanto has less connection with microtonal
> music than a cat has with calculus. The only real surprise is that
> Szanto ever opens his mouth about microtonality, since he is so
> obviously totally unqualified to say even word one about
> microtonality. Yes, Szanto supposedly spent 2 years with Partch --
> about that claim, Jonathan Glasier has remarked, "Szanto arrived late,
> and his time with Partch was short." And since Szanto has has no
> connection whatever with composing or performing any microtonal music
> since 1987, Szanto's qualifications for saying anything about
> microtonality are nil.
> Szanto's group "Making Microtonal Music" should be called
> "Mutilating Microtonal Music." It stands as a sinister monument to the
> power of character assassination by an ignoramus pervasively
> unfamiliar with even the most basic elements of microtonality, as
> Szanto is, and apparently devoted to verbally brutalizing and
> discouraging anyone who dares compose microtonal music.
> What does common sense suggest when we subject Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's claims to the test of facts and logic?
> If Jonathan Szanto is so deeply involved composing and performing
> microtonal music, where is the evidence of it?
> If Jonathan Szanto is a microtonal musician, show us the evidence
> -- where is it? Show it to us. Show us the great big stack of CDs of
> microtonal music Szanto has performed.
> Where are they?
> Nowhere. They don't exist.
> Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling the truth when he
> implies that Jonathan Szanto is a microtonal musician? Or is he
> telling yet another foolishly obvious lie?
> Toward what conclusion do facts and logic impel us when we examine
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's statements? Is Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling the truth? Or is he once
> again telling lies and using character assassination to cover up his
> gross ignorance?
> Moving on to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's next
> statement, we have
>
> "Paul, Jon and Joe have all composed microtonal music. What,
> exactly, is your claim to fame?"
>
> Let us use facts and logic, as always, to test Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's retort.
> I compiled the bibliogragphy at the Huyghens/Fokker website. This
> is actually only a small part of my scholarship. As it happens, this
> bibliography is only the tail end of my article "A Brief History Of
> Microtnoality In the 20th Century," which has been described as "THE
> major piece of scholarship about the history of microtonality." Larger
> and more comprehensive than any other scholarly resource documenting
> microtonality in the 20th century, "A Brief History of Microtonality
> Int he 20th Century" clicks in at well over 60,000 words and compares
> well with a typical PhD thesis. Indeed, more than one academic has
> remarked, "If I ever get into a position to do it, you deserve a PhD
> on the basis of that scholarship alone."
> It stands to reason that Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is
> unfamiliar with such major scholarship about microtonality, since each
> of Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's statements reveal not only
> his ignorance of microtonality and his incompetence as a scholar, but
> his overweening arrogance as well.
> Of course "A Brief History Of Microtonality" is only a small part
> of my scholarly output. I've translated part of Laurent Fichet's 1996
> "Scientific Theories of Music In the 19th and 20th Centuries" as well
> as other major scholarship including the article "Microtonality and
> Psychoacoustics" and "A Survey Of Microtonality In America."
> Naturally Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is not familiar
> with these scholarly works either.
> What does a reasonable person conclude?
> I've also created an "introduction to Microtonality" CD that has
> been used int he only academic courses taught in the United States on
> microtonality.
> Faced with this evidence, what does a reasonable person conclude?
> Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith knowledgeable about the
> state of the art in microtonal scholarship? Or is he too ignorant to
> realize my major contributions, to incompetent as a researcher to
> bother to look up this widely-available information, and too arrogant
> to realize how ignorant and incompetent he is?
> What does common sense suggest?
> Moving on from my scholarship and pedagogy to my music, I have
> produced 14 CDs of my own microtonal music and my music appears on 22
> different compilation CDs created with other microtonal musicians.
> I have composed more microtonal music in more tunings (JI, ET and
> NJ NET) than other human being alive or dead, and enough people have
> described my microtonal music as "the best microtonal music" they've
> heard that this judgment cannot be dismissed entirely out of hand.
> Here are some of the comments virtuoso performers and scholars and
> professional musicians have made about my CDs of microtonal music:
>
> "I listened to the music with total delight." -- Allen Strange,
> former president of the Computer Music Association
>
> "Some of the best microtonal music I've heard." -- Kris Peck
>
> "Perfect music, perfectly recorded." -- Gennadiy Kurgin, dean of
> the Ukraine school of Music and the Arts
>
> "Mclaren is the only person who seems to compose serious microtonal
> music -- the people on the ATL are just noodling around and I'm tired
> of it." -- John H. Chalmers, editor of the microtonal journal
> "Xenharmonikon."
>
> "I love your music." -- Warren Burt, instructor at the University
> of Urbana at Champaign in a course on microtonality
>
> "These are masterful compositions." -- M. Joel Mandelbaum, emeritus
> professor, Queens College
>
> "The scope of your musical and technical imagination is amazing --
> I really feel like I've gone through the mirror into a parallel
> universe when I listen -- a hyperchromatic landscape that makes most
> other musics pale in comparison." -- virtuoso microtonal guitarist
> John Schneider
>
> If this sounds like boasting...no, just the facts.
> But you did ask.
> By the way...how many virtuoso musicians or professional musicians
> have described _your_ music as "the best microtonal music they've
> ever heard," Gene?
> Let me guess:
> None.
> We _do_ have a description of Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
> Smith's music courtesy of Jonathan Szanto, however. Smith apparently
> admires Szanto, so we should pay attention when Szanto discusses
> Smith's music. Szanto recentrly described Gene Smith's music as a root
> canal without anaesthesia. See recent posts on Making Microtonal
> Music for details.
> Moving on to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's next
> assertion, we arrived at:
>
> "Gene Ward Smith is also a better composer than you will ever be,
> in his obviously far from humble opinion. That you are a microtonal
> hack does not make you special."
>
> Rather than dispute about what is obviously an unfalsifiable
> personal opinion, we may quickly and easily reduce Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's claim from a conveniently unfalsifiable belief to
> a question of knowledge.
> Instead of asking whether I am a good or bad composer, let us ask --
> what si the hard evidence that Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith
> knows anything at all about my music?
> Logic tells us that if Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith does
> not know anything about my music and has never heard my music, then he
> must by definition be lying when he asserts that "Gene Ward Smith is
> also a better composer than you will ever be."
> Of course, as always we can apply facts and logic to test Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's claim against observable reality.
> On my CD of microtonal music "McLaren - Microtonal Music Volume 1,"
> what is the instrumentation of track 5?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then the facts suggest that he has never even heard any of
> my 14 CDs of microtonal music and as a consequence Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith is telling yet another lie, since he cannot possibly
> presume to make statements about a composer whose music he has never
> heard.
> On my CD of microtonal music "McLaren - Microtonal Music Volume 2,"
> how many tracks are there?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "McLaren - Microtonal Music Volume 3,"
> what musical form is employed in the second movement of the 15 tone
> equal piano concerto?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "McLaren - Microtonal Music Volume 4,"
> how many different just intonation compositions appear?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "McLaren - Microtonal Music Volume 5,"
> what are the specific non-just non-equal-tempered tunings used?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "McLaren - Microtonal Music Volume 6,"
> how many tracks are there?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD "240 Piano Pieces - Volume 1," what are the equal tempered
> tunings used?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "240 Piano Pieces - Volume 2," how
> many tracks are there?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "240 Piano Pieces - Volume 3," what
> musical form does track 9 use?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "240 Piano Pieces - Volume 4," what
> musical form does track 7 use?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "240 Piano Pieces - Volume 5," what is
> the relationship between the last composition on track 20 and the
> first composition on track 21?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "144 Of the World's Most Xenharmonic
> Melodies," which instrumentation is used by the fifth track?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "Beyond All Limits - Volume 1," which
> instrumentation is used on track 11?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "Beyond All Limits - Volume 2," what
> JI limit is used on track 19?
> When we examine Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's claims
> against the evidence, what does a reasonable person conclude?
> Is he knowledgeable about the subjects he purports to discuss? Or
> he provably ignorant?
> Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith a competent scholar? Or is
> he forced to tell lies and use character assassination because of his
> crass incompetence as a scholar?
> Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith a person who tells the
> truth? Or does he tell lie after lie after lie after lie online?
> What does common sense inform us about a person who constantly tell
> s lies? How is such a person common described?
> lastly, we come to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's final
> baseless assertions:
>
> "*Everything* I write is microtonal, you baboon."
>
> To paraphrase the Borg of Star Trek fame, "Insults are irrelevant."
> Name-calling of the kind Gene Smith indulges in here ("you baboon")is
> typically the last resort of someone who has run out of facts and
> logic and has nothing but lies and invective left in a vain attempt to
> distract us from the facts.
> Instead of being distracted, let us center in on the facts. Where
> is the hard evidence that any of the meantone tunings Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has wasted his life numerologizing
> about on the Alternative Lying List can be objectively and verifiably
> distinguished from a typical piano in 12 equal under objective blind
> listening tests?
> We need not respond to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's
> hysterical name-calling here other than to point out the obvious
> logical conclusion that if under objective listening tests Smith's
> meantone tunings cannot be reliably distinguished from the tuning ona
> typical piano tuned in 12 equal, then by definition worthless
> numerolgoical swill like Smith's various 12-equal meantone tunings
> cannot be called "microtonal."
> In order to qualify as "microtonal," clearly a tuning must be
> audibly distinguishable from 12. If it's not, then it's not
> microtonal.
> Where is the hard evidence from objective blind listening tests
> proving that listeners can reliably hear a difference between Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's various numerological concoctions
> and a typical piano in 12 equal?
> There are none.
> There is no evidence that Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has
> ever conducted any objective blind listening tests capable of
> falsifying the hypothesis that his numerological meantone tunings are
> audibly different from 12 equal.
> What does a reasonsable person conclude from an examination of Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's output?
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith uses numbers to generate
> tunings but he never bothers to test whether these tunings can be
> audibly differentiated from 12 equal.
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith uses the trappings of science
> -- namely, equations, MAPLE, and lists of numbers -- but Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith systematically avoids and ignores the
> actual scientific method -- namely, objective blind listening
> experiments capable of falsifying an hypothesis.
> When a person like Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith uses the
> outward trappings of science but ignores and flagrantly traduces
> against the scientific method, is this an example of valid science?
> Or is it pseudo-science?
> When we apply facts and logic to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
> Smith's cumulative output on the Alternative Lying List, do we
> discover that Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is a serious
> researcher...or a deluded and muddle-headed pseudoscientists on the
> level of the typical ufologist or astrologer?
> When we examine www.xenharmony.org, do we find more scientific
> content than in astrology? Or less?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's output on the web has
> less scientific content than astrology, what does that tell us about
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's standing as a scholar and as a
> researcher?
> Lastly, let us consider Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's
> final assertion:
>
> "What an imbecile."
>
> Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary levels of proof.
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has made the claim that I am
> mentally defective. That qualifies as an extraordinary claim.
> Provide hard evidence that I am mentally defective, Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or stand revealed as a liar and a
> character assassin.
> Hard evidence in this case, because of the extraordinary nature of
> the claim, must rise to the same extraordinary level. Therefore we
> will require Gene SMith to upload notarized copies of at least 3
> (three) IQ tests showing that I am mentally defective (sub-70 IQ)
> along with at least 1 notarized copy of an official court document
> certifying me as mentally defective in a court proceeding. If such
> court documents exist, they should be easy to find.
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot provide the hard
> evidence to back up his claim, what does a reasonable person conclude?
> Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling the truth?
> Or is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith a person who hurls
> frantic lies and hysterical name-calling at anyone who uses facts and
> logic to examine his laughably false claims about microtonality?
>
> EXIT QUESTION:
> What does a reasonable person conclude upon learning that a person
> pathologically addicted to telling lies and using character
> assassination online, as Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has
> proven himself to be, is (savage joke of a word) "moderator" of an
> online group on microtonality?
> What do facts and logic tell us about a person who has demonstrated
> such appalling ignorance and such shocking incompetence and such
> startling arrogance as Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has, when
> we learn that this rabid reincarnation of Senator Joseph McCarthy
> actually _controls_ an online group allegedly devoted to discussing
> microtonality?
> Isn't that like putting John Wayne Gacy in charge of an online
> group about child care?
> Putting Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith in control of an
> online microtonal discussion group is like putting Ted Bundy in
> control of a group devoted to discussing dating young girls, isn't it?
> Does this explain why all the competent knowledgeable microtonal
> musicians have abandoned the Alternative Lying List as a hopeless
> sinkhole of deluded folly exhibiting less scientific content than
> Dianetics and offering less factually accurate information about
> microtonal music than the Sears Catalog?
> Does this explain why microtonal composer after microtonal composer
> has described the ATL and its membership (like Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith) as "a bunch of kooks screaming lies" and "crackpots
> spouting gibberish and wacked-out pseudoscience"?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

--- In crazy_music@yahoogroups.com, "xenharmonic" <xed@e...> wrote:

> As a result, practitioners of musically meaningless numerology
> like Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith and his ilk find themselves
> with nothing to do but indulge in hysterical name-calling when faced
> with facts and logic.

I propose an experiment--why don't you provide either facts or logic
or (best of all) both, and see how I respond?

> If you want to know why I've abandoned the internet, Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's recent spasm of name-calling
> offers us Exhibit One.

Good. Buhbye.

> MCLAREN -- 14 CDs of microtonal and 22 compilation CDs of
> microtonal music playing with other microtonalists, virtually
> no words online

None that make any sense, at any rate.

> What does common sense suggest when Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's arguments on the internet cause a 7-year-old child
> to giggle uncontrollably?

At a guess, that you had ketchup on your nose.

> I have composed more microtonal music in more tunings (JI, ET and
> NJ NET) than other human being alive or dead...

Bully. Of course when you listen to other people's music which use a
variety of tunings, you think you are listening to 12-equal, which
suggests you are a bit tone-deaf.

> Here are some of the comments virtuoso performers and scholars and
> professional musicians have made about my CDs of microtonal music:

Gosh. Actually, though, people sometimes say nice things about my
music as well.

> Instead of being distracted, let us center in on the facts. Where
> is the hard evidence that any of the meantone tunings Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has wasted his life numerologizing
> about on the Alternative Lying List can be objectively and verifiably
> distinguished from a typical piano in 12 equal under objective blind
> listening tests?

Anyone (emphatically including you) who cannot tell a piece in
Ennealimmal[54] from 12-equal is either tone-deaf, completely deaf, or
not very bright.

Brian (and, by extension, Jacob, and further extension, list-owner Jeff):

--- In crazy_music@yahoogroups.com, "xenharmonic" <xed@e...> wrote:
> You only have to study
> the archives of the ATL to realize the sheer number of lies told in
> public by Jonathan Szanto, who has lied constantly and lied
> energetically and lied with a vituperation and a sadism that truly
> takes the breath away. Not only has Jonathan Szanto told lie after lie
> after lie in public, he has lied about telling lies -- and then, when
> called on his lies, he lies about having lied about having lied!
> Clearly cases like Jonathan Szanto rise above the ordinary realm of
> everyday lying into the empyrean range of the pathological. And here
> we encounter a strange dreamworld indeed. Life for a pathological liar
> must be incredibly weird. Since every word out of Jonathan Szanto's
> mouth is a lie, can you imagine what it must be like for Szanto?
> Just think of it... Szanto wakes up and probably finds himself
> compelled to say "Well, at least I'm not awake." Then Szanto sees the
> sun is shining and I imagine he has to say, "Darn, it's still night."
> Then Szanto brushes his teeth and probably feels he has to murmur, "I
> guess I don't have time to brush my teeth." Szanto gets dressed and
> in all likelihood mutters to himself, "But I suppose I'll just have to
> avoid getting dressed today."
> And so on.
> Someone who has lied and lied and lied and lied and lied, over and
> over again in public, to the point where essentially everything that
> dribbles out of his mouth is a lie, as Jonathan Szanto has done,
> inhabits a special realm of pathology. The pathological liar, who
> finds finds himself irresistably compelled to say the opposite of the
> truth, is a specimen of human being with whom we seldom come in
> contact...except on the internet.

What can I say? It is pretty difficult, even with the past history that Brian and I share, to view this in print and really not be quite disturbed by it.

But then again, I'm NOT a pathological liar, or any other kind of liar, and I'm willing to bet that most anyone who has spent time in the online posting would realize this. I'm not infallible, but I try to correct errors, and I don't lie to people. End of story. And I wonder what a lawyer would do with the above accusations?

Very lastly, the following from Brian:
> JONATHAN SZANTO -- no CDs of microtonal music, millions of words
> online.

I have produced no CDs because I am a casual composer at best. I don't believe my work is at a point, or of a quality, to need distribution, save for copies I send to friends. Myself, I'd rather not try to force onto listeners inept or mediochre music; other people may feel differently about peddling their own wares.

As for millions of words, I hope Brian is more careful with tuning than he is with comments like this - thousands, perhaps, but that is over nearly 10 years online, and the bulk of it is not all on one subject. Any person with common intelligence and net skills will see that for themselves.

Best to all, I've made my peace with these points.

Cheers,
Jon