[tuning] Digest Number 1761

You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for
the tuning group.
tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest
mode.
tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual
emails.
tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are 18 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Re: now we know (advertisements)
From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
2. Re: "complete" Blackjack progression posted
From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
3. Re: "complete" Blackjack progression posted
From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
4. Re: "complete" Blackjack progression posted
From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
5. Re: Super Particular Stepsize
From: "unidala" <JGill99@imajis.com>
6. Re: Super Particular Stepsize
From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
7. Re: Re: 22 tet notation (again)
From: Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@which.net>
8. Re: Instrument photos
From: Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@which.net>
9. Re: Usenet, anyone?
From: "clumma" <carl@lumma.org>
10. Temperament: The Idea That Solved Music's Greatest Riddle
From: "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>
11. Re: Need help converting .doc + pictures to .pdf
From: "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>
12. Re: Re: The supremacy of modulation (for Paul, among others)
From: Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>
13. Re: The supremacy of modulation (for Paul, among others)
From: "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>
14. Re: The supremacy of modulation (for Paul, among others)
From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
15. Re: Useless theory news
From: "monz" <joemonz@yahoo.com>
16. Re: Useless theory news
From: "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>
17. Re: Usenet, anyone?
From: "unidala" <JGill99@imajis.com>
18. (free) Proxomitron blocks Yahoo Ads
From: J Gill <JGill99@imajis.com>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:02:45 -0000
From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
Subject: Re: now we know (advertisements)

--- In tuning@y..., <jpff@c...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31453.html#31547

> >>>>> "jpehrson2" == jpehrson2 <jpehrson@r...> writes:
>
> jpehrson2> Yes, that might be good, but there are also
complicating factors...
> jpehrson2> look at what happened to the Mills list... :(
>
> Sorry for my bad memory, but what did happen?
>

Hello John fffitch!

Well, my understanding is that somebody "pulled the plug" on it...
either they left the University or decided they didn't want to devote
the server space to it. That could always happen...

best,

Joe Pehrson

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:10:09 -0000
From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
Subject: Re: "complete" Blackjack progression posted

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

/tuning/topicId_31512.html#31558

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Paul!
> >
> > Well then, the next question :)
> >
> > is whether *every* tempered periodicity block has the same
> properties of "limited transposition..."
> >
> > My guess would be yes...
> >
> > Joseph
>
> Not if you temper out _all_ the unison vectors. Then you have an
ET, or at least a "well-temperament".

Oh sure... well that makes sense. So, that would, essentially,
differentiate between the limited transpositions of the diatonic set
and, let's say, the full transpositions of the traditional 12-tET
chromatic, for example... (??)

Thanks, Paul!

JP

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:19:26 -0000
From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
Subject: Re: "complete" Blackjack progression posted

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> Oh sure... well that makes sense. So, that would, essentially,
> differentiate between the limited transpositions of the diatonic
set
> and, let's say, the full transpositions of the traditional 12-tET
> chromatic, for example... (??)

Right . . . now, in my answer, I forgot to mention that if you leave
_more than one_ of the unison vectors untempered, you don't get the
nice transposability properties of _either_ . . .

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:20:22 -0000
From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
Subject: Re: "complete" Blackjack progression posted

I wrote,

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > Oh sure... well that makes sense. So, that would, essentially,
> > differentiate between the limited transpositions of the diatonic
> set
> > and, let's say, the full transpositions of the traditional 12-tET
> > chromatic, for example... (??)
>
> Right . . . now, in my answer, I forgot to mention that if you
leave
> _more than one_ of the unison vectors untempered, you don't get the
> nice transposability properties of _either_ . . .

. . . the diatonic set or the 12-tET chromatic.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 16:12:13 -0000
From: "unidala" <JGill99@imajis.com>
Subject: Re: Super Particular Stepsize

Paul,

Sorry about the notational "180 deg phase shift" on my (and not your)
part in these recent threads - where I (in a attempt to conform to
common practice!) have "flipped" the ASCII characters (used ":"
for "pitches", and "/" for "intervals"). I will modify my notation in
this full post to your common form below, and remain phase-locked.. :)

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote:

> > and its harmonics occuring at integer multiples existing
> > *above* that reference frequency (of 1/1), in order that the
results
> > tables will have a commonly based reference point of comparison.

>PE: What about the pair of pitches 4/5 and 6/5,

JG: 'LCMR' ("lowest common multiple referenced to 1/1") = 12/5.

>PE: or 4/13 and 6/13,

JG: 'LCMR' = 12/13

>PE: or 4/pi
> and 6/pi, for example?

JG: 'LCMR' = 12/1 (because the denominators of the two ratios do
*not* share a common prime factor)

>PE: They also form a 3:2 interval, and are just as
> consonant with one another as, say, 2/3 with 1/1, or 1/1 with 3/2.

JG: Well, the 'LCMR's (respectively), are equal 2/1 and 3/1, because -
that is the frequency (*relative* to the pitch of 1/1) at which
the "lowest frequency of harmonic coincidence" appears in a (linear
horizontal scale) frequency spectrum display... Seems well grounded.

> > In the first case directly above I consider the 'LCM' as 3/1
> (relative
> > to a value of 1/1, and equal to the 3rd harmonic of 1/1), and in
>the
> > latter case, I consider the 'LCM' as 2/1 (relative to a value of
>1/1,
> and
> > equal to the 2nd harmonic of 1/1).
>
>PE: So a _lower_ perfect fifth is more consonant than a _higher_
>perfect
> fifth? That doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

JG: All the 'LCMR' says is that (harmonically, and hence spectrally)
it's value is a smaller number in the case of 2/3 compared to 1/1
than it is in the case of 3/2 compared to 1/1. This indicates that
a "harmonic series of coinciding inter-tone harmonics" does (in the
case of 2/3 compared to 1/1) begin at a *lower* frequency (2/1) than
is the case where where 3/2 is compared to 1/1 (at frequency = 3/1).

JG: I'm not at all certain (and have not, I hope, left you with the
impression) that I have defined what constitutes the (far more
complicated, hotly debated permutations of a) "consonance" (concept)
is fully_explained, or otherwise somehow directly_related_to, this
determination of an 'LCM' of two rational numbers which referenced to
a rational number equal to 1/1 ( the 'LCMR').

With that in mind, one of the things that has intrigued me about the
prospect of the (octave specific) world of calculating composite
spectrums of "complex" tones is (at least) the possibility that - a
musical JI 4th (2/3) played in unison *below* the 1/1 MAY WELL (in a
spectral, hence timbral characteristic) SOUND DIFFERENT than a
musical JI 5th (3/2) played in unison above the 1/1. My primary aim
in developing a system of examining "harmonic" relationships is to
(wherever possible) avoid making personal judgements about the
desirability of combining various scale pitches in chords, focusing
more upon what the mathematical structures yield as a JI "harmonic
template", a "universe" from which some choices from the
central "gamut" may prove to be more usable than many of the others.

I am more interested in exploring some of the "whys" and "why nots"
of the various choices of JI intervals (without regard to
temperament, or other methods by which the JI "musical structure" may
be altered in the interest of "moving around on the keyboard"
successfully). Whether such insights would provide lots of scale
pitches with which to construct N-tone scales where N approaches
infinty (!), I do not know. I see the 'LCMR' as more of an "analysis"
tool than as a "synthesis tool"...

As to "consonance", "concordance", and "tonal affinities", simply
knowing where all the harmonics "coincide" may contribute to (but not
universally define or encompass) the characteristics of
such "complex" combinations of JI scale pitches, where the "spectral
forest" in full of many (time-variant) "trees", only some of
which "coincide". We would probably all like to know the "full" story!

Terhardt (on his website) is fairly brief regarding his fascinating
(but somewhat vague) "tonal affinity" concepts. Do know of any other
treatments of his "tonal affinity" concepts available by other means?

> > Your question is well taken, and
> > prompts me to (more accurately) refer to the operation as
> the "lowest
> > common multiple of the reference (frequency; pitch)" ('LCMR', or
> > something). Do you see conceptual error in proceeding this
> way?
>
>PE: Yes. However, a true LCM (least common multiple) approach will
>just
> lead you back exactly to 'TH', as I tried to indicate before. The
> ratio between 1/1 and 3/2, or between 2/3 and 1/1, or between 4/13
> and 6/13, is a 3:2 ratio, and the LCM of 3 and 2 is 6.
>
> > >PE: you end up in the "integer limit" world which
> > > we've discussed extensively,
> >
> > JG: I guess I might have some reading to do? I "plugged in" the
> > term "integer limit" into the Yahoo ATL search "engine", and (of
> > course) I'm getting all posts including *either "integer"
> or "limit",
> > but I did not see the phrase "integer limit" in any of the
>message
> > headers... Any specific references (or search terms)?
>
> Well, not really, I think we can just talk through this stuff.
>
> > >PE: and is not very different from the
> > > Tenney/Partch world.
>
> For example, a Farey series describes the contents of a "harmonic
> sphere" around 1/1, in the integer limit world.
> >
> > >PE: The ratio formed by a tone 2/3 and a tone 3/2 is 9:4. The
> Tenney
> > > harmonic distance is log(36)
> >
> > JG: I see the "error of my ways" in the table above <|:o
> >
> > >PE: and the "integer limit" is 9.
> >
> > JG: "Integer limit", then, as the value of the numerator (only)?
>
> Right, if all ratios are expressed as improper fractions . . .
> although "integer limit" is an ambiguous term, and can also
>mean "the
> highest numerator in a set of ratios".
>
> > >PE: Actually the 'TH' always agrees exactly with the LCM when
>the
> > > frequency is measured in units of _the implied fundamental_
> >
> > JG: Could you give me a more specific definition of what you mean
> > directly above by the phrase "implied fundamental"? :)
>
> The "virtual pitch", or the highest possible "missing root" such
>that
> if there were a tone there, it would have harmonics right were the
> tones in question are.
>
> > >PE: -- or
> > > when the _wave period_
> >
> > JG: You do mean "period" (not it's algebraic inverse
> of "frequency")?
>
> Yes.
>
> > >PE: is measured in units of the _lowest common
> > > overtone_.
> >
> > JG: So you are saying here that - once one has determined the
> > numerical (period, and not frequency?) value of the "lowest
common
> > overtone", ... then (and only then) does one know at what precise
> > pitch the value of the "Tenney height" ('HT') is intended to be
> > *referenced* to???
>
> No -- there are at least three ways to reference it.
>
> (1) You can reference it to the frequency of the "implied
> fundamental", which you therefore call "1" -- and then the LCM of
>the
> frequencies of the two notes equals the 'TH'.
>
> (2) You can reference it to the period of the lowest common
>overtone,
> which you therefore call "1" -- and then the LCM of the periods of
> the two notes equals the 'TH'.
>
> (3) Originally, you were referencing the frequency of the lowest
> common overtone, but then (seemingly inconsistently) the higher. If
> you reference the geometric mean of the two notes by calling _that_
> 1, the frequency of the lowest common overtone will come out as
>equal
> to the square root of 'TH'.

JG: You have here given me a good bit to "chew on" here (and I
appreciate your taking your time to consider some of these ideas, and
offer information and feedback which is valuable to me. Thank you.
Will study this post, and probably have a question or two for you!

Best Regards, J Gill

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 16:30:52 -0000
From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
Subject: Re: Super Particular Stepsize

> > --- In tuning@y..., "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote:
>
> > > and its harmonics occuring at integer multiples existing
> > > *above* that reference frequency (of 1/1), in order that the
> results
> > > tables will have a commonly based reference point of comparison.
>
> >PE: What about the pair of pitches 4/5 and 6/5,
>
> JG: 'LCMR' ("lowest common multiple referenced to 1/1") = 12/5.
>
> >PE: or 4/13 and 6/13,
>
> JG: 'LCMR' = 12/13
>
> >PE: or 4/pi
> > and 6/pi, for example?
>
> JG: 'LCMR' = 12/1 (because the denominators of the two ratios do
> *not* share a common prime factor)
>
> >PE: They also form a 3:2 interval, and are just as
> > consonant with one another as, say, 2/3 with 1/1, or 1/1 with 3/2.
>
> JG: Well, the 'LCMR's (respectively), are equal 2/1 and 3/1,
because -
> that is the frequency (*relative* to the pitch of 1/1) at which
> the "lowest frequency of harmonic coincidence" appears in a (linear
> horizontal scale) frequency spectrum display... Seems well grounded.

What??? This seems to make no sense at all! Let me give you more
examples:

4/e and 6/e
24/25 and 36/25
Shall I go on?

> JG: All the 'LCMR' says is that (harmonically, and hence
spectrally)
> it's value is a smaller number in the case of 2/3 compared to 1/1
> than it is in the case of 3/2 compared to 1/1. This indicates that
> a "harmonic series of coinciding inter-tone harmonics" does (in the
> case of 2/3 compared to 1/1) begin at a *lower* frequency (2/1)
than
> is the case where where 3/2 is compared to 1/1 (at frequency = 3/1).

True . . . but your 4/pi : 6/pi example would _not_ seem to conform
to this logic!
>
> With that in mind, one of the things that has intrigued me about
the
> prospect of the (octave specific) world of calculating composite
> spectrums of "complex" tones is (at least) the possibility that - a
> musical JI 4th (2/3) played in unison *below* the 1/1 MAY WELL (in
a
> spectral, hence timbral characteristic) SOUND DIFFERENT than a
> musical JI 5th (3/2) played in unison above the 1/1.

Well, if you have a fixed 1/1, it's lower and, if too low, _less_
consonant . . . But what if you _haven't_ designated a 1/1? Shouldn't
you be able to evaluate intervals _as intervals_, without reference
to any putative choice of tonal center?

Let's say you say no and stick with your idea of relating everything
back to a fixed 1/1 (you'll still have to modify your approach with
pi, etc.) You'll end up finding that all members of an infinite
undertone series under 1/1 (i.e., 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, etc.) have
an 'LCMR' of 1 when taken two, or more, at a time. This would seem to
be the "ultimate consonant scale" under your rule. But if you listen
to the sound two low notes, say 1/10 and 1/11, make when played
together, you might reconsider . . .

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 17:35:35 +0000
From: Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@which.net>
Subject: Re: Re: 22 tet notation (again)

dkeenanuqnetau wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> > I decided to
> > notate the shapes in the Fokker based notation thet Dave (Keenan)
> kindly
> > provided some time back, so I wrote out the note names and step
> numbers
> > on a 22 tet fretboard template : -
> >
> > homepages.which.net/~alison.monteith3/
>
> As Paul said, nothing here about 22-tET.

I corrected the link on my next post.

> I'm hoping you're referring to the Rapoport-style notation which I
> mistakenly atrributed to Fokker. I believe this is what Scala uses.

Yes, that'll be the one. You gave me that one and Ben Johnson's, expressing a
preference for the
former.

> > Does anyone really find it
> > satisfactory to have all the open strings of a standard tuned guitar
> > notated with an accidental?
>
> I don't.
>
> > Secondly, is there any good reason as to
> why
> > I (we) shouldn't just shift everything back one step and have our
> > precious "C" notated as "C^" or whatever accidental we choose? Then
> we
> > have open strings without accidentals, including A, a good candidate
> for
> > 440Hz.
>
> I can't see a problem with this.

Good, then if the "boffins" are happy, I'll get on with it. Thanks.

Kind Regards

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 17:36:03 +0000
From: Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@which.net>
Subject: Re: Instrument photos

Kraig Grady wrote:

> Alison!
> Nice to see pictures as it definitely give more of a real sense of what
one is up to.
> Is there much volume ( i guess this also depends on the thickness of
the string plus tension )
> to the zithers and have you tried bowing them.

Both zithers project and sustain well. Possibly a property of the hardwood.
They'd be easy to bow but
as the strings lie on the same plane you'd be unable to isolate individual
courses. Perhaps in
another tuning if I wanted sustained hexads.

Kind Regards

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 9
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 19:13:06 -0000
From: "clumma" <carl@lumma.org>
Subject: Re: Usenet, anyone?

"unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote:
>> I've never really used usenet, so I can't say, but on first take I
>> wouldn't prefer it. But these new ads are unacceptable.
>
>
>Regarding my personal experience over the last five years(in
>browsing through, and taking a look at the message content of,
>use net groups), the statement that "spam is a daily occurance"
>rings fairly true for the average group.
>
>An excellent NNTP news reader/responder software interface is
>Forte Agent

Agree- I've been using Agent since 1995. But I've never posted
to the usenet.

> (2) The necessity for [some person(s)] to actually *moderate* the
> group on an ongoing basis, in order to ensure that the all-too-
...

I don't think Academic usenet groups are as bad as all this, but
your two options completely ignored my suggestion of a list member
owned and opperated listserv.

-Carl

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 10
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 19:18:15 -0800
From: "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>
Subject: Temperament: The Idea That Solved Music's Greatest Riddle

<http://www.tnr.com/121001/franklin121001.html>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 11
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 01:55:05 -0000
From: "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>
Subject: Re: Need help converting .doc + pictures to .pdf

Paul,

I sent you at least two links to programs that could do it - did they
not work? Have you tried them? And, if your papers are to end up
publishable as well as correctable/ammendable (like my spelling!),
does it not make sense for you to actually *get* Adobe Acrobat so you
can publish your papers yourself? I'm sure it could be a tax write-
off in some fashion, and you could probably find a college student
willing to purchase an academic version for a real price.

I *know* you don't borrow guitars to play gigs! :)

If you misplace the links I sent, or trashed them without trying, let
me know and I'll resend... (unless the inevitable and horrible thing
happened: I'm actually thinking of someone *else* I sent .pdf links
to...)

Cheers,
Jon

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 12
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:25:42 -0800
From: Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>
Subject: Re: Re: The supremacy of modulation (for Paul, among others)

Paul!
I hear thai music as pentatonic but don't hear it as modulating more
than say Javanese or
Balinese, which i assumed from what you had said.

Many many good thai restaurants here and they stay open late!!

paulerlich wrote:

>
> You don't hear Thai music as essentially pentatonic?
>
> > BTW there is a big thai population here to the point that off the
> > freeway there are signs that say Thaitown
>
> Lucky you! Any good restarants?
>
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 13
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 05:17:20 -0000
From: "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>
Subject: Re: The supremacy of modulation (for Paul, among others)

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Many many good thai restaurants here and they stay open late!!

I should work backwards on this one: in San Diego there are a lot of
great Thai restaurants as well, and maybe since I frequent them I
ought to find out more about the music!

Cheers,
Jon

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 14
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 05:25:22 -0000
From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
Subject: Re: The supremacy of modulation (for Paul, among others)

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31463.html#31571

> --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > Many many good thai restaurants here and they stay open late!!
>
> I should work backwards on this one: in San Diego there are a lot
of
> great Thai restaurants as well, and maybe since I frequent them I
> ought to find out more about the music!
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

I had just mentioned to Paul Erlich today that we have one of the
best Thai restaurants in New York right in our building
complex....quite an elegant restaurant too...

We should continue to "Thai" this thread over on metatuning...

JP

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 15
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 23:12:10 -0800
From: "monz" <joemonz@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Useless theory news

> From: paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 5:14 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Useless theory news
>
>
> Familiar with 612-tET as the good old "scale of schismas", it hit
> be [_sic_: me] that there must be an important 7-limit tiny interval
> that is 1/1664 octave.
>
> Indeed there is: 2401:2400, with which Graham Breed created the now
> famous "Blackjack pump" chord progression some time ago . . .

More useless theorizing...

Here's the prime-factorization of the 2401:2400 ratio:

2^-5 * 3^-1 * 5^-2 * 7^4

So in "8ve"-invariant terms (i.e., ignoring prime-factor 2),
it's the difference between 7^4 (= 2401:2048 = ~275.3036259 cents)
and 3^1 * 5^2 (= 75:64 = ~274.5824286 cents), which amounts to
only ~0.721197281 (just a bit more than 5/7) cent.

My voicing and mp3 file of Graham's theoretical "Blackjack pump"
progression is near the bottom of:
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm

Is there some information I should have for a Dictionary entry
for the "breedsma"?

love / peace / harmony ...

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 16
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 08:34:52 -0000
From: "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>
Subject: Re: Useless theory news

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> Is there some information I should have for a Dictionary entry
> for the "breedsma"?

Just put a picture of Graham's mother and be done with it. :)

Time for bed,
Jon

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 17
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 09:33:24 -0000
From: "unidala" <JGill99@imajis.com>
Subject: Re: Usenet, anyone?

--- In tuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
> "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote:
> >> I've never really used usenet, so I can't say, but on first take I
> >> wouldn't prefer it. But these new ads are unacceptable.
> >
> >
> >Regarding my personal experience over the last five years(in
> >browsing through, and taking a look at the message content of,
> >use net groups), the statement that "spam is a daily occurance"
> >rings fairly true for the average group.
> >
> >An excellent NNTP news reader/responder software interface is
> >Forte Agent
>
> Agree- I've been using Agent since 1995. But I've never posted
> to the usenet.
>
> > (2) The necessity for [some person(s)] to actually *moderate* the
> > group on an ongoing basis, in order to ensure that the all-too-
> ...
>
> I don't think Academic usenet groups are as bad as all this,

JG: I agree with your outlook on that, Carl. The "academic-based" groups do,
on average, have less SPAM posted to them.

but
> your two options completely ignored my suggestion of a list member
> owned and opperated listserv.
>
> -Carl

JG: Sorry about that! It sounds like an option, allright!

J Gill :)

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 18
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 01:45:53 -0800
From: J Gill <JGill99@imajis.com>
Subject: (free) Proxomitron blocks Yahoo Ads

I downloaded the freeware Proxomitron 4.0 from

http://www.proxomitron.org

installed it (its a free-standing executable which
does not make any changes to registry, sys, or
ini files, just unzip it into any folder you like)

configured IE browser (in Internet Options -
Connections - ISP Settings - check the
"Use proxy server" box - select Advanced -
enter "localhost" as Proxy Adress -
enter "8080" as Port Number)

Using the DEFAULT settings of Proxomitron:

NO MORE YAHOO ADS in the messages!

and, no "proxy server" service to pay,
no software to buy...

J Gill

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path:
<sentto-70605-1761-1008410019-a440a=aol.com@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
Received: from rly-xc02.mx.aol.com (rly-xc02.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.135])
by air-xc02.mail.aol.com (v82.22) with ESMTP id MAILINXC26-1215045441; Sat,
15 Dec 2001 04:54:41 1900
Received: from n10.groups.yahoo.com (n10.groups.yahoo.com [216.115.96.60])
by rly-xc02.mx.aol.com (v82.22) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXC22-1215045414;
Sat, 15 Dec 2001 04:54:14 1900
X-eGroups-Return:
sentto-70605-1761-1008410019-a440a=aol.com@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [216.115.97.166] by n10.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Dec
2001 09:53:40 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <1008410019.510.47512.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Mailing-List: list tuning@yahoogroups.com; contact
tuning-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list tuning@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: 15 Dec 2001 09:53:39 -0000
From: tuning@yahoogroups.com
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tuning] Digest Number 1761
Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit