Re: Hello to Beginners!

Paul,

In your defense (from any perceived charges eminating from the "Peanut Gallery", which you are certainly free to ignore):

From your Tuning Post #30301:

<<And you're saying that I try to obscure the definitions.>>

<<And you're implying that I'm insincere and evasive.>>

JG: Perhaps you are just anxious to get on to the next subject which catches your interest....without authoring a dissertation.
One only has so many heartbeats, and only so much time...

<<Look, J, I'm sorry that I tend to try to compress a lot of information into very short posts. I know that each one is geared to be understandable by at least a few other list members...>>

JG: I sympathize with the problems of constructing concise presentations which are coherent to a wide-spectrum audience...

<<On many, many occasions, at so much as the drop of a hat, I've stopped and taken the time to compose a little "gentle introduction" to this or that topic.>>

JG: Indeed, I've come across several major efforts which you have posted attempting to explain some of your ideas that clearly were not simple undertakings to author and present... Your "Forms of Tonality" is well constructed, informative, and the graphics are "a thing of Beauty"...

<<But there has to _be_ a questioner -- otherwise, there's simply too much interesting stuff to discuss with certain others on this list...>>

JG: Granted, there does have to be a questioner in order to answer a question, and there seems to be a plethora of other interesting matters and subjects with which you are engaged...

As amended in your Tuning Post #30304:
<<The things you're implying about me are simply untrue, and you're certainly [not helping] the cause of "de-obfuscation" by casting these aspersions my way (I wouldn't want to ask this "paul" guy any questions after reading what you wrote).>>

JG: Whether such (implicitly subjective) impressions regarding the social aspects of interactions (whether they eminate from I or thou) possess an objective binary "truth" or "untruth" validated by declaration is doubtful to me. Neither yourself or I can or should control the viewpoints of others by merely wishing to do so (such is the nature of public discourse). Whether a common and consistent "cause of de-obfuscation" here exists is debatable (though it would, I am certain, become an "obfuscated" debate)...

However, "aspersions" appears to mean "remarks that hurt", and I apologize that, in my own personal frustration in trying to follow your intended meanings (and clarifications), I seem to have (by, as you say, "casting these aspersions my" [your] "way") caused you pain. I have used the words "appear" and "seem" because I cannot as one individual judge by declaration what are your intentions in the course of Paul being Paul. I can only speak of my own impressions as one member of your "audience". My own frustrations have arisen out of the desire to interact (as opposed to not interacting) with you. You are certainly not beholden to please me any more than you are beholden to please any other member of your audience. Life is too short. Enjoy! The world is full of morons (and they allways seem to be the ones who cannot understand what it is that I am talking about)... <l:)

<<I want you to think of me as your next-door neighbor who you can turn to for anything you need>>

JG: Thank you, my friend. Above quoted are the words of a well intentioned person, and you have the "benefit of my doubt".

Be Well, J Gill