Re: a separate forum

[Paul H. Erlich:]
>in a separate, math-oriented forum. If the heavy quantitative discusssions
are moved off the original list, many people who would otherwise be turned
off, including the rare breed of musicians dedicated to playing
microtonally, might be enticed to "stick" around.

(Personally) I really don't see the need for this... If the dominant tenor
of the list is theory oriented, it's mostly because that handful of
individuals are carrying the TD ball so to speak... If there are other (and
I certainly do believe there are) microtonal "avenues" to pursue in the
specific context of this forum, I believe a certain responsibility exist for
those interested in these other "avenues" to consistently contribute.

[Paul:]
>There is certainly enough room on the internet for all of us. What do y'all
think?

I certainly agree... and (IMO) I think if it weren't for a couple of
particularly heated _personal_ exchanges that ended up being carried out in
the public forum of the TD, both Neil and Dave would probably still be
around...

Dan

Jay here,
I, for one, would be pissadointed if this forum became move specialized.
And so the kitchen occasionallyy gets a bit warm. So what else's new?
It's been 30-something years since I sat up nights contemplating relatively
arcane avenues of tuning systems. I'm glad to be back doing it again and
this list's a neat way of doing it. So let's carry on, mates!
At 07:25 PM 8/2/99 -0700, you wrote:
>From: "D.Stearns" <stearns@capecod.net>
>
>[Paul H. Erlich:]
>>in a separate, math-oriented forum. If the heavy quantitative discusssions
>are moved off the original list, many people who would otherwise be turned
>off, including the rare breed of musicians dedicated to playing
>microtonally, might be enticed to "stick" around.
>
>(Personally) I really don't see the need for this... If the dominant tenor
>of the list is theory oriented, it's mostly because that handful of
>individuals are carrying the TD ball so to speak... If there are other (and
>I certainly do believe there are) microtonal "avenues" to pursue in the
>specific context of this forum, I believe a certain responsibility exist for
>those interested in these other "avenues" to consistently contribute.
>
>[Paul:]
>>There is certainly enough room on the internet for all of us. What do y'all
>think?
>
>I certainly agree... and (IMO) I think if it weren't for a couple of
>particularly heated _personal_ exchanges that ended up being carried out in
>the public forum of the TD, both Neil and Dave would probably still be
>around...
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>ONElist: your connection to like-minds and kindred spirits.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
>email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to the tuning list.
> tuning-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from the tuning list.
> tuning-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
> tuning-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.
>
>
>

[Paul Erlich, TD 268.3:]
> Those of you who are mathematically inclined, let us beseech Dave
> (d.keenan@uq.net.au) to join us in a separate, math-oriented forum.

[Rick Tagawa, TD 268.12:]
> For me, the mathematics on tuning@onelist can get overwhelming
> especially with all the cryptic bantering and misc. emails re
> corrections.

Hmmm. Not long ago I corrected myself as follows:

[me, TD 245.2:]
> Correction! In an earlier post I stated that the 19-tET 7:4,
> represented by 15 microtones, is 12.9 cents shy of a Just 7:4. It's
> actually worse than that, 21.46 cents shy.
>
> JdL

Rick, do you find that troublesome? Had I not corrected myself, someone
else would have done so for me, so the bits are spent in any case. Is
it so hard to scan past the message if it's not of interest to you?

I do not wish to split the list. I'm sorry as heck that we've lost
David Keenan; I hope he'll come back, but the problems that led to his
departure are not from divergence of interest; they are from the usual
hot-headedness that every one of us is periodically (and/or continuously)
subject to.

Let's move on, and make liberal use of the PageDown key when we see a
post that does not interest us.

JdL

Dear John,
You're right. I think corrections are fundamental. It's just that since
I'm saving thousands of these emails and the corrections represent double
work and call into question the reliability of information dealing with a
particular topic. I usually read my emails from a list starting from the
top which is often in reverse chronology. The correction can appear first.
I then end up with two emails that I hope someday to piece together but they
both end up in a folder entitled "math" until a later date.

I concur that the math discussion should stay on onelist. I can deal with
it.
RT

>
> Rick, do you find that troublesome? Had I not corrected myself, someone
> else would have done so for me, so the bits are spent in any case. Is
> it so hard to scan past the message if it's not of interest to you?
>