Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Whiter Paul Erlich?

Aaron,

Assuming you meant "whither" and not "whiter", right? Considering recent threads, that is a pretty Freudian slip!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...> wrote:
>
> Has anyone heard? The group is just not the same without his
> presence...not as cozy and familiar.

He's probably taking time away. As I said before, virtually no one spoke up on his behalf when he was unfairly treated, and I don't blame him if he feels that his "cozy and familiar" community might have let him down.

Jon

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@comcast.net>

On Thursday 18 December 2003 10:35 am, Jon Szanto wrote:
> Aaron,
>
> Assuming you meant "whither" and not "whiter", right? Considering recent
> threads, that is a pretty Freudian slip!

Ooops! And a funny Freudian slip at that....yes, I meant "whither" with an
'h'.

>- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...> wrote:
> > Has anyone heard? The group is just not the same without his
> > presence...not as cozy and familiar.
>
> He's probably taking time away. As I said before, virtually no one spoke up
> on his behalf when he was unfairly treated, and I don't blame him if he
> feels that his "cozy and familiar" community might have let him down.

I'm surprised that more people don't feel that there is an important
personality missing now...or do they?

I certainly have found that things aren't as fun and interesting without his
commentary and input.

I won't go there about the unfair treatment part. I, for one, made my feelings
known, even though I wanted to be fair to Peter and let him explain his views
directly. And I'm bothered that the whole thing seems to have all but been
brushed under the rug in the name of tuning theory.

Best,
Aaron.

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>

/tuning/topicId_50096.html#50106

wrote:
> On Thursday 18 December 2003 10:35 am, Jon Szanto wrote:
> > Aaron,
> >
> > Assuming you meant "whither" and not "whiter", right? Considering
recent
> > threads, that is a pretty Freudian slip!
>
> Ooops! And a funny Freudian slip at that....yes, I meant "whither"
with an
> 'h'.
>
> >- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:
> > > Has anyone heard? The group is just not the same without his
> > > presence...not as cozy and familiar.
> >
> > He's probably taking time away. As I said before, virtually no
one spoke up
> > on his behalf when he was unfairly treated, and I don't blame him
if he
> > feels that his "cozy and familiar" community might have let him
down.
>
> I'm surprised that more people don't feel that there is an
important
> personality missing now...or do they?
>
> I certainly have found that things aren't as fun and interesting
without his
> commentary and input.
>
> I won't go there about the unfair treatment part. I, for one, made
my feelings
> known, even though I wanted to be fair to Peter and let him explain
his views
> directly. And I'm bothered that the whole thing seems to have all
but been
> brushed under the rug in the name of tuning theory.
>
> Best,
> Aaron.

***In the first place, it's ludicrous to think that somebody who came
on this list for six days could push off a member who has posted
regularly here for six *years* or more...

Paul is obviously using this abusive treatment as a good excuse to
leave for a while and concentrate on his music. His _Stretch_ group
has really been playing a lot lately...

It's something that Jon Szanto said Paul should do *years* ago.

But certainly I/we miss his lucidity and tuning authority as, I
believe, one of the few true experts in the field...

Joseph Pehrson

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

hi Joe,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
>
> ***In the first place, it's ludicrous to think that
> somebody who came on this list for six days could push
> off a member who has posted regularly here for six *years*
> or more...

many more. 2004 will mark paul's 10th anniversary on
this list. he been here pretty much since the beginning.

> Paul is obviously using this abusive treatment as a
> good excuse to leave for a while and concentrate on
> his music. His _Stretch_ group has really been playing
> a lot lately...
>
> It's something that Jon Szanto said Paul should do *years* ago.

in fact, upon recovering from his illness of the last week,
he's going out to a gig.

> But certainly I/we miss his lucidity and tuning authority
> as, I believe, one of the few true experts in the field...

without the Sault episode, paul would have been gone anyway
due to illness ... but i fear that he'll be keeping a low
profile for quite some time. hopefully i'm wrong, and he'll
be back here full-strength as soon as his time allows.

-monz

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Werner Mohrlok <wmohrlok@hermode.com>

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:
> On Thursday 18 December 2003 10:35 am, Jon Szanto wrote:
> > Aaron,
> >
> > Assuming you meant "whither" and not "whiter", right? Considering
recent
> > threads, that is a pretty Freudian slip!
>
> Ooops! And a funny Freudian slip at that....yes, I meant "whither"
with an
> 'h'.
>
> >- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:
> > > Has anyone heard? The group is just not the same without his
> > > presence...not as cozy and familiar.
> >
> > He's probably taking time away. As I said before, virtually no
one spoke up
> > on his behalf when he was unfairly treated, and I don't blame him
if he
> > feels that his "cozy and familiar" community might have let him
down.
>
> I'm surprised that more people don't feel that there is an
important
> personality missing now...or do they?
>
> I certainly have found that things aren't as fun and interesting
without his
> commentary and input.
>
> I won't go there about the unfair treatment part. I, for one, made
my feelings
> known, even though I wanted to be fair to Peter and let him explain
his views
> directly. And I'm bothered that the whole thing seems to have all
but been
> brushed under the rug in the name of tuning theory.
>
> Best,
> Aaron.

Anytime Mr. Erlich wishes to issue an apology for his outrageous
allegation I would be willing to consider accepting it. Until then it
would seem that he is a victim of his own pride and prejudice.

Peter

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>

/tuning/topicId_50096.html#50166

wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
> wrote:
> > On Thursday 18 December 2003 10:35 am, Jon Szanto wrote:
> > > Aaron,
> > >
> > > Assuming you meant "whither" and not "whiter", right?
Considering
> recent
> > > threads, that is a pretty Freudian slip!
> >
> > Ooops! And a funny Freudian slip at that....yes, I
meant "whither"
> with an
> > 'h'.
> >
> > >- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
> wrote:
> > > > Has anyone heard? The group is just not the same without his
> > > > presence...not as cozy and familiar.
> > >
> > > He's probably taking time away. As I said before, virtually no
> one spoke up
> > > on his behalf when he was unfairly treated, and I don't blame
him
> if he
> > > feels that his "cozy and familiar" community might have let him
> down.
> >
> > I'm surprised that more people don't feel that there is an
> important
> > personality missing now...or do they?
> >
> > I certainly have found that things aren't as fun and interesting
> without his
> > commentary and input.
> >
> > I won't go there about the unfair treatment part. I, for one,
made
> my feelings
> > known, even though I wanted to be fair to Peter and let him
explain
> his views
> > directly. And I'm bothered that the whole thing seems to have all
> but been
> > brushed under the rug in the name of tuning theory.
> >
> > Best,
> > Aaron.
>
> Anytime Mr. Erlich wishes to issue an apology for his outrageous
> allegation I would be willing to consider accepting it. Until then
it
> would seem that he is a victim of his own pride and prejudice.
>
> Peter

***Hi Peter,

Peter, if you'd go back in the archive and read the messages you will
find that Paul leveled no accusations against you, aside from the
general comments that he thought your evaluation of Western classical
music, vis a vis "world music" was a bit hyperbolic. [Well, OK, he
said your view was "disgusting" as I recall :) ]

I believe you were lashing out at everybody at that point, but the
good news was at least you were an "equal opportunity" slasher...

J. Pehrson

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>
>
> /tuning/topicId_50096.html#50166
>
> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
> > wrote:
> > > On Thursday 18 December 2003 10:35 am, Jon Szanto wrote:
> > > > Aaron,
> > > >
> > > > Assuming you meant "whither" and not "whiter", right?
> Considering
> > recent
> > > > threads, that is a pretty Freudian slip!
> > >
> > > Ooops! And a funny Freudian slip at that....yes, I
> meant "whither"
> > with an
> > > 'h'.
> > >
> > > >- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
<akjmicro@c...>
> > wrote:
> > > > > Has anyone heard? The group is just not the same without his
> > > > > presence...not as cozy and familiar.
> > > >
> > > > He's probably taking time away. As I said before, virtually
no
> > one spoke up
> > > > on his behalf when he was unfairly treated, and I don't blame
> him
> > if he
> > > > feels that his "cozy and familiar" community might have let
him
> > down.
> > >
> > > I'm surprised that more people don't feel that there is an
> > important
> > > personality missing now...or do they?
> > >
> > > I certainly have found that things aren't as fun and
interesting
> > without his
> > > commentary and input.
> > >
> > > I won't go there about the unfair treatment part. I, for one,
> made
> > my feelings
> > > known, even though I wanted to be fair to Peter and let him
> explain
> > his views
> > > directly. And I'm bothered that the whole thing seems to have
all
> > but been
> > > brushed under the rug in the name of tuning theory.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Aaron.
> >
> > Anytime Mr. Erlich wishes to issue an apology for his outrageous
> > allegation I would be willing to consider accepting it. Until
then
> it
> > would seem that he is a victim of his own pride and prejudice.
> >
> > Peter
>
>
> ***Hi Peter,
>
> Peter, if you'd go back in the archive and read the messages you
will
> find that Paul leveled no accusations against you, aside from the
> general comments that he thought your evaluation of Western
classical
> music, vis a vis "world music" was a bit hyperbolic. [Well, OK, he
> said your view was "disgusting" as I recall :) ]
>
> I believe you were lashing out at everybody at that point, but the
> good news was at least you were an "equal opportunity" slasher...
>
> J. Pehrson

Paul most certainly did post a message that impugned my character.
The reason it cannot be found in the archive is that he deleted the
message quite soon after I told him it was libellous. I think *that*
is still the reason he is afraid to return - he may well have got
legal advice that confirms what I said. It was Kalle who set him off
and who, in my opinion, largely bears the reponsibility for what has
become known as the 'imbroglio'. I am not going to repeat the
contents of the message. Well you can all relax. The offending
message is gone and I'm not going to sue anybody. I just don't want
to hear any more of that kind of crap, ok?

Peter

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Jay Rinkel <jrinkel@hiwaay.net>

On Saturday 20 December 2003 10:41 am, you wrote:
> Paul most certainly did post a message that impugned my character.
> The reason it cannot be found in the archive is that he deleted the
> message quite soon after I told him it was libellous. I think *that*
> is still the reason he is afraid to return - he may well have got
> ... snip ...
>
> Peter
>

Wow... Peter may be right. I'm actually subscribed through email and I
compared the messages that I received vs. what is in the archive, and a
message from Paul does appear to be missing from the archive. Which brings
up an interesting thought -- I didn't realize people could delete messages
once they were posted. Since I use this group strictly via email, there are
a number of things I can not do that people subscribing through the web can
do.... And here is another thought -- I think we all say things from time to
time we wished we could "take back". If Paul did indeed delete a message
back off the archive, is it possible that he did it because maybe he was a
bit hasty and wanted to "take it back"?

Don't flame me -- just some thoughts here.

Jay Rinkel

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>
> wrote:
>
> > Paul most certainly did post a message that impugned my
character.
> > The reason it cannot be found in the archive is that he deleted
the
> > message quite soon after I told him it was libellous.
>
> Paul lives in the USA. If you think what he wrote was actionable
> under American law, then you are the one who needs a lawyer.
>
> I suggest taking this to metatuning.

As I mentioned in my very first response, Paul Erlich's libel is
actionable under British law.

As for your suggestion - I suggest you make it to those who keep
dredging it up in this group. As long as the slanders and lies
persist here, I will continue to respond to them directly. You shut
up and I'll shut up. What don't you understand about that?

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>
wrote:

> As I mentioned in my very first response, Paul Erlich's libel is
> actionable under British law.

You can't sue him in a British court, sorry.

> As for your suggestion - I suggest you make it to those who keep
> dredging it up in this group. As long as the slanders and lies
> persist here, I will continue to respond to them directly. You shut
> up and I'll shut up. What don't you understand about that?

Take it to metatuning. I delete anything further on this topic here.

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 12/20/03 9:59 PM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>
> wrote:
>
>> As I mentioned in my very first response, Paul Erlich's libel is
>> actionable under British law.
>
> You can't sue him in a British court, sorry.
>
>> As for your suggestion - I suggest you make it to those who keep
>> dredging it up in this group. As long as the slanders and lies
>> persist here, I will continue to respond to them directly. You shut
>> up and I'll shut up. What don't you understand about that?
>
> Take it to metatuning. I delete anything further on this topic here.

It would actually be good to have a way of getting a consensus, or at least
to have some stated policy prior to taking such action. If we can all
understand such policy, and accept it as reasonable, even of course if
policy will never be perfect, then it ends up being a better situation.
Censorship is a "use of power" and it is good if that is preceeded by
policy. I think we have not much in the way of fleshed-out policy here.
When action is in keeping with prior stated policy things are much clearer.
In this case I think the policy needs to be very clear because there will
always be semi-off-topic things that are relevant to a particular list. As
someone put it "the health of the list" is one such "off" topic that might
be appropriate. That is an example, anyway.

Of course, "move it to metatuning" is not really censorship in the strict
sense, since metatuning is just as available as tuning to everyone here, and
the distinction allows people choice as to whether they want to be
exposed/involved in the discussion. It just requires an extra step to
subscribe, which may make it practically akin to censorship for those of us
who don't want to subscribe to another group.

-Kurt

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>> Take it to metatuning. I delete anything further on this topic here.
>
>It would actually be good to have a way of getting a consensus, or at
>least to have some stated policy prior to taking such action. If we
>can all understand such policy, and accept it as reasonable, even of
>course if policy will never be perfect, then it ends up being a better
>situation. Censorship is a "use of power" and it is good if that is
>preceeded by policy. I think we have not much in the way of fleshed-out
>policy here.

My policy is: any posts that have zero music content are subject to
deletion without warning or fanfare. Posts containing excessive
profanity are subject to deletion without warning or fanfare. With
the understanding that the policy will not be actioned unless the
violation is egregious, like the "imbroglio" or whatever thread has
clearly become.

Posters who repeatedly have me worrying about having to delete their
posts are subject to moderation and/or removal from the list. With
the understanding that the policy will not be actioned unless the
violation is egregious, as Brian McLaren's was, and as Peter's is
becoming.

>When action is in keeping with prior stated policy things are much
>clearer.

Moderation will always be subjective. The way you hedge against it
is to have multiple moderators, and for the moderator torches to be
passed periodically. If you try to turn moderation into a democratic
affair you are guaranteed a disaster.

>As someone put it "the health of the list" is one such "off" topic
>that might be appropriate. That is an example, anyway.

Such topics belong on metatuning...

/metatuning/

...with leniency for thoughtful posts, posts directed at people who
don't know about metatuning, etc.

>Of course, "move it to metatuning" is not really censorship in the
>strict sense, since metatuning is just as available as tuning to
>everyone here, and the distinction allows people choice as to whether
>they want to be exposed/involved in the discussion. It just requires
>an extra step to subscribe, which may make it practically akin to
>censorship for those of us who don't want to subscribe to another
>group.

Sorry for the inconvenience, but if you want to turn the tuning list
into a political affair you're going to need the extra bandwidth.

-Carl

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 12/20/03 11:19 PM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>
>> It would actually be good to have a way of getting a consensus, or
> at least
>> to have some stated policy prior to taking such action.
>
> My policy is that I told Peter to take the off-topic stuff to
> metatuning, and he refused, so I put him on moderated status.

I trust that the topic of policy can stay around just a little longer on
this list. Regardless of the current situation it is a really good idea to
have policy stated and deemed reasonable in advance of action. Failure to
follow this kind of approach might bite us in the future. That is always
the problem with power. (Right?)

It also seems entirely reasonable that all of this can be discussed on
metatunings, including policy for "tunings". If you take it there, I will
feel compelled to go join.

-Kurt

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 12/20/03 11:33 PM, Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org> wrote:

>>> Take it to metatuning. I delete anything further on this topic here.
>>
>> It would actually be good to have a way of getting a consensus, or at
>> least to have some stated policy prior to taking such action. If we
>> can all understand such policy, and accept it as reasonable, even of
>> course if policy will never be perfect, then it ends up being a better
>> situation. Censorship is a "use of power" and it is good if that is
>> preceeded by policy. I think we have not much in the way of fleshed-out
>> policy here.
>
> My policy is: any posts that have zero music content are subject to
> deletion without warning or fanfare. Posts containing excessive
> profanity are subject to deletion without warning or fanfare. With
> the understanding that the policy will not be actioned unless the
> violation is egregious, like the "imbroglio" or whatever thread has
> clearly become.
>
> Posters who repeatedly have me worrying about having to delete their
> posts are subject to moderation and/or removal from the list. With
> the understanding that the policy will not be actioned unless the
> violation is egregious, as Brian McLaren's was, and as Peter's is
> becoming.
>
>> When action is in keeping with prior stated policy things are much
>> clearer.
>
> Moderation will always be subjective. The way you hedge against it
> is to have multiple moderators, and for the moderator torches to be
> passed periodically. If you try to turn moderation into a democratic
> affair you are guaranteed a disaster.
>
>> As someone put it "the health of the list" is one such "off" topic
>> that might be appropriate. That is an example, anyway.
>
> Such topics belong on metatuning...
>
> /metatuning/
>
> ...with leniency for thoughtful posts, posts directed at people who
> don't know about metatuning, etc.
>
>> Of course, "move it to metatuning" is not really censorship in the
>> strict sense, since metatuning is just as available as tuning to
>> everyone here, and the distinction allows people choice as to whether
>> they want to be exposed/involved in the discussion. It just requires
>> an extra step to subscribe, which may make it practically akin to
>> censorship for those of us who don't want to subscribe to another
>> group.
>
> Sorry for the inconvenience, but if you want to turn the tuning list
> into a political affair you're going to need the extra bandwidth.
>
> -Carl

That all sounds reasonable to me. Thanks.

-Kurt

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

> I trust that the topic of policy can stay around just a little
longer on
> this list. Regardless of the current situation it is a really good
idea to
> have policy stated and deemed reasonable in advance of action.

I first requested, and then required, that Peter move discussions of
whether Paul Erlich is the Spawn of Satan to metatuning, where it is
on topic. If a moderator gives a warning, one might reasonably
object, but Peter didn't do that, he just gave me the finger. My
response was the least drastic alternative; I neither canceled his
posting priviledges nor unsubscribed him, but merely put him on a
status where Carl or I will have to approve his messages. What
alternative would you propose?

🔗Werner Mohrlok <wmohrlok@hermode.com>

> > Paul most certainly did post a message that impugned my character.
> > The reason it cannot be found in the archive is that he deleted the
> > message quite soon after I told him it was libellous. I think *that*
> > is still the reason he is afraid to return - he may well have got
> > ... snip ...
> >
> > Peter
> >

> Wow... Peter may be right. I'm actually subscribed through email and I
> compared the messages that I received vs. what is in the archive, and a
> message from Paul does appear to be missing from the archive. Which
brings
> ---snip... back off the archive, is it possible that he did it because
maybe
> he was a bit hasty and wanted to "take it back"?

> Don't flame me -- just some thoughts here.

> Jay Rinkel

By this way: We all can "take it back" by saying "I apologize for this"
I am not speaking of Paul. I speak of all us. Including me.

Werner

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_50096.html#50253

> >> Take it to metatuning. I delete anything further on this topic
here.
> >
> >It would actually be good to have a way of getting a consensus, or
at
> >least to have some stated policy prior to taking such action. If
we
> >can all understand such policy, and accept it as reasonable, even
of
> >course if policy will never be perfect, then it ends up being a
better
> >situation. Censorship is a "use of power" and it is good if that
is
> >preceeded by policy. I think we have not much in the way of
fleshed-out
> >policy here.
>
> My policy is: any posts that have zero music content are subject to
> deletion without warning or fanfare. Posts containing excessive
> profanity are subject to deletion without warning or fanfare. With
> the understanding that the policy will not be actioned unless the
> violation is egregious, like the "imbroglio" or whatever thread has
> clearly become.
>
> Posters who repeatedly have me worrying about having to delete their
> posts are subject to moderation and/or removal from the list. With
> the understanding that the policy will not be actioned unless the
> violation is egregious, as Brian McLaren's was, and as Peter's is
> becoming.
>
> >When action is in keeping with prior stated policy things are much
> >clearer.
>
> Moderation will always be subjective. The way you hedge against it
> is to have multiple moderators, and for the moderator torches to be
> passed periodically. If you try to turn moderation into a
democratic
> affair you are guaranteed a disaster.
>
> >As someone put it "the health of the list" is one such "off" topic
> >that might be appropriate. That is an example, anyway.
>
> Such topics belong on metatuning...
>
> /metatuning/
>
> ...with leniency for thoughtful posts, posts directed at people who
> don't know about metatuning, etc.
>
> >Of course, "move it to metatuning" is not really censorship in the
> >strict sense, since metatuning is just as available as tuning to
> >everyone here, and the distinction allows people choice as to
whether
> >they want to be exposed/involved in the discussion. It just
requires
> >an extra step to subscribe, which may make it practically akin to
> >censorship for those of us who don't want to subscribe to another
> >group.
>
> Sorry for the inconvenience, but if you want to turn the tuning list
> into a political affair you're going to need the extra bandwidth.
>
> -Carl

***It might be good, too, if the multiple moderators would talk to
one another (email) and determine a common course of action or to see
if everybody agrees on the same one, before doing anything. Just a
thought...

J. Pehrson

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_50096.html#50254

> on 12/20/03 11:19 PM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> >
> >> It would actually be good to have a way of getting a consensus,
or
> > at least
> >> to have some stated policy prior to taking such action.
> >
> > My policy is that I told Peter to take the off-topic stuff to
> > metatuning, and he refused, so I put him on moderated status.
>
> I trust that the topic of policy can stay around just a little
longer on
> this list. Regardless of the current situation it is a really good
idea to
> have policy stated and deemed reasonable in advance of action.
Failure to
> follow this kind of approach might bite us in the future. That is
always
> the problem with power. (Right?)
>
> It also seems entirely reasonable that all of this can be discussed
on
> metatunings, including policy for "tunings". If you take it there,
I will
> feel compelled to go join.
>
> -Kurt

***You might want to, as Peter has some, er, "interesting" stuff over
that at the moment... :)

J. Pehrson
\

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>***It might be good, too, if the multiple moderators would talk to
>one another (email) and determine a common course of action or to see
>if everybody agrees on the same one, before doing anything. Just a
>thought...

Things aren't typically done that way and although it may be hard at
first to see why, I think they aren't done that way for a reason.
Nevertheless, this isn't usenet, and the number of nutty professor
cases is pretty small, and in fact I had a message to Gene in my
outbox when I saw his post here -- in this case, I think he did the
right thing.

-Carl

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_50096.html#50284

> >***It might be good, too, if the multiple moderators would talk to
> >one another (email) and determine a common course of action or to
see
> >if everybody agrees on the same one, before doing anything. Just a
> >thought...
>
> Things aren't typically done that way and although it may be hard at
> first to see why, I think they aren't done that way for a reason.
> Nevertheless, this isn't usenet, and the number of nutty professor
> cases is pretty small, and in fact I had a message to Gene in my
> outbox when I saw his post here -- in this case, I think he did the
> right thing.
>
> -Carl

***I agree. The offending defendant was told several times to get
his butt "on topic" and he refused to do so...

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 12/21/03 1:32 AM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>
>> I trust that the topic of policy can stay around just a little
> longer on
>> this list. Regardless of the current situation it is a really good
> idea to
>> have policy stated and deemed reasonable in advance of action.
>
> I first requested, and then required, that Peter move discussions of
> whether Paul Erlich is the Spawn of Satan to metatuning, where it is
> on topic. If a moderator gives a warning, one might reasonably
> object, but Peter didn't do that, he just gave me the finger. My
> response was the least drastic alternative; I neither canceled his
> posting priviledges nor unsubscribed him, but merely put him on a
> status where Carl or I will have to approve his messages. What
> alternative would you propose?

Well its pretty much a moot point now, perhaps, but just to complete the
thoought...

If instead of saying:

> Take it to metatuning. I delete anything further on this topic here.

you had said:

> Take it to metatuning. If you fail to comply I will delete the offending
messages and put you on moderated status.

then there would have been no issue, because you would have basically stated
the policy in advance, and stuck to exactly what you said.

But you were acting under pressure, with no advance notice to consider the
subtlety of policy issues, so I really don't fault your actions. And I'm
glad you were on board to do it. Thanks.

-Kurt

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

Yes, whiter.

A *lot* whiter than anyone in the club, in fact.

My cold/flu is mostly subsided, and I've just returned from
performing and witnessing (George Coleman no less!) live music in NYC
and the above description applies to both.

I'm only caught up as far as post #50368 so far, but I've been
relatively active on the tuning-math and harmonic_entropy lists --
I'll tell you guys about those shortly.

Meanwhile, glad to see the list is active and fascinating as
always . . .

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,
Paul

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_50096.html#50624

> Yes, whiter.
>
> A *lot* whiter than anyone in the club, in fact.
>
> My cold/flu is mostly subsided, and I've just returned from
> performing and witnessing (George Coleman no less!) live music in
NYC
> and the above description applies to both.
>
> I'm only caught up as far as post #50368 so far, but I've been
> relatively active on the tuning-math and harmonic_entropy lists --
> I'll tell you guys about those shortly.
>
> Meanwhile, glad to see the list is active and fascinating as
> always . . .
>
> Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,
> Paul

****Welcome back, Paul! and I'm so glad you're joining us again.
Your input has been sorely missed. I'm glad that SOB what's his name
(now he's going to *sue* me!) isn't around anymore and certainly he
shouldn't have been able to knock a "longtimer" off...

Happy Holidays to you as well (from Grosse Pointe, Michigan)

Joseph

Whiter Paul Erlich?

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@comcast.net>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@comcast.net>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Werner Mohrlok <wmohrlok@hermode.com>

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Jay Rinkel <jrinkel@hiwaay.net>

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Werner Mohrlok <wmohrlok@hermode.com>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>