Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning McLaren banned from this list?

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

>>Is it true that Brian McLaren has been banned from this list? >>
>I checked in moderator activity, and apparently not.
>
From periodic comments Brian makes to me on this topic, it would probably fair to say that Brian views the majority of the conversation on the tuning list as overtheorization and "numerology," with not enough emphasis in actual musical results. He also appears to believe that it is too heavily concerned with 5-limit just intonation at the expense of higher JI limits or other types of tuning systems.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Gary Morrison <mr88cet@a...> wrote:

> From periodic comments Brian makes to me on this topic, it would
> probably fair to say that Brian views the majority of the
conversation
> on the tuning list as overtheorization and "numerology," with not
enough
> emphasis in actual musical results. He also appears to believe
that it
> is too heavily concerned with 5-limit just intonation at the
expense of
> higher JI limits or other types of tuning systems.

If that's really his position then it is self-contradictory; the only
way to distinguish 5-limit from 7-limit, or either from tempering, is
via the very sort of "numerology" he decries.

🔗Gary Morrison <mr88cet@austin.rr.com>

Gary Morrison wrote:

> Look guys, I'm not defending, or even speaking for, Brian; I'm just > answering the question as best I understand it.

As for my own opinions of the list, I confess that I haven't read it much recently. I kinda gave up on the list a few years ago after a couple attempts to get people to go beyond the text-only discussion.

For example, one time I proposed to have a separate, adjuct list for routinely posting MIDI, sound, and picture files (or at least URLs to them). That way, those whose equipment limits them to text-only discussion could just stick with the conventional list, and those who don't have that limitation could subscribe to both. The text-only folks hated that idea, because they didn't want to be left out of discussions on the non-text list.

However, what little I have seen of the tuning list since then suggests that, shortly after I pretty much gave up on it, it has since moved very much in that direction, and people are in fact posting music and illustrations on the list. So, that strikes me as a positive development - one that Brian may not even be aware of.

🔗alternativetuning <alternativetuning@yahoo.com>

Gary:

I think a list is going to be more theory than composing, and this is
for a good reason.

Music theory is "style-neutral" and you can write about music theory
without "dissing" anybodys music.

Some people on this list get passionate and angry about any music
theory. They get angry at seeing too many numbers. But so what? No
body is injured by this, just jump over the messages. This is almost
the perfect medium for music theory.

But if you start making critique of real music examples, you invite
real hurt feelings. Some people make microtones music in classical or
avantgarde idioms, some make jazz or rock or headbanger microtones
idioms.

So the style is a obstacle. But theory, techniques, instruments are
topics to open discussion.

Gabor

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Gary Morrison <mr88cet@a...> wrote:
> Gary Morrison wrote:
> As for my own opinions of the list, I confess that I haven't read it
> much recently. I kinda gave up on the list a few years ago after a
> couple attempts to get people to go beyond the text-only discussion.
>
> For example, one time I proposed to have a separate, adjuct list for
> routinely posting MIDI, sound, and picture files (or at least URLs to
> them).

🔗piccolosandcheese <jbarton@rice.edu>

> Some people on this list get passionate and angry about any music
> theory. They get angry at seeing too many numbers. But so what? No
> body is injured by this, just jump over the messages. This is almost
> the perfect medium for music theory.

There is, however, the factor of intimidation that comes with discussing a lot of
theory, and that could scare some people away.

> But if you start making critique of real music examples, you invite
> real hurt feelings. Some people make microtones music in classical or
> avantgarde idioms, some make jazz or rock or headbanger microtones
> idioms.

I have witnessed no bashing on the basis of style, not really any reason for any hurt
feelings. (Crushed spirits, feel free to chime in and correct me.) I think people can
be expected to give constructive feedback to a piece if asked to give feedback, and
the more objective question of how the tuning serves the music could always be
addressed if one has nothing else nice to say.

I can certainly envision some types of posts that don't seem too common now:

-CD reviews!

-more intuitional or experience based questions like, what's a good openly spaced
tetrad in 14-et? or, how does the relative consonance of fourths and dissonance of
minor thirds in 17-et affect compositional choices in a four-part fugue?

-poking around and finding new scales. Gene all of your woolly-headed numerology
applied to Aaron's challenge did in fact yield a bunch of musically useful scales; the
one you call aaron I tuned up and loved. But there are of course scores of other ways
of making scales, and the sharing of scales is certainly a useful thing.

-posting of midi files as examples of the above two. as gary morrison had in mind.
the files section here is very seldom added to.

Of course, the types of posts on here are only a reflection of the people here; there is
no expecting these things if no one happens to be buying microtonal CDs or
composing 17-et fugues or tuning up harmonics 16 through 21 nonoctave-style and
banging on it for an hour (me!).

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Gary Morrison <mr88cet@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_53090.html#53096

> Gary Morrison wrote:
>
> > Look guys, I'm not defending, or even speaking for, Brian; I'm
just
> > answering the question as best I understand it.
>
> As for my own opinions of the list, I confess that I haven't read
it
> much recently. I kinda gave up on the list a few years ago after a
> couple attempts to get people to go beyond the text-only discussion.
>
> For example, one time I proposed to have a separate, adjuct list
for
> routinely posting MIDI, sound, and picture files (or at least URLs
to
> them). That way, those whose equipment limits them to text-only
> discussion could just stick with the conventional list, and those
who
> don't have that limitation could subscribe to both. The text-only
folks
> hated that idea, because they didn't want to be left out of
discussions
> on the non-text list.
>
> However, what little I have seen of the tuning list since then
suggests
> that, shortly after I pretty much gave up on it, it has since moved
very
> much in that direction, and people are in fact posting music and
> illustrations on the list. So, that strikes me as a positive
> development - one that Brian may not even be aware of.

***Even moreso, Jon Szanto's Make Micro Music list has taken up much
of this "slack..." and, in fact, splintered just for this reason, as
you are probably aware...

/makemicromusic/

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "piccolosandcheese" <jbarton@r...>

/tuning/topicId_53090.html#53098

> I can certainly envision some types of posts that don't seem too
common now:
>
> -CD reviews!
>
> -more intuitional or experience based questions like, what's a good
openly spaced
> tetrad in 14-et? or, how does the relative consonance of fourths
and dissonance of
> minor thirds in 17-et affect compositional choices in a four-part
fugue?
>
> -poking around and finding new scales. Gene all of your woolly-
headed numerology
> applied to Aaron's challenge did in fact yield a bunch of musically
useful scales; the
> one you call aaron I tuned up and loved. But there are of course
scores of other ways
> of making scales, and the sharing of scales is certainly a useful
thing.
>

***Weeeellll.... this did happen on the list a couple of years ago,
and it was subject to some intense derision. We invented
the "Blackjack" scale, which has been *very* practical for me, on
this list! However, many people objected to the "numerology"
involved in this and the lists splintered as a result. There was
also some intense discussion as to types of chords in Blackjack, and
people objected to this too (can't keep 'em happy :) so Paul Erlich
started the "Miracle Tuning" list which is really very inactive of
late...

Some people just complain about *everything...* :)

So, now there is a suggestion that this is *exactly* what we should
be doing on this list... :)

Gotta love it... :)

> -posting of midi files as examples of the above two. as gary
morrison had in mind.
> the files section here is very seldom added to.
>

***You can't. There is no room.

There is *another* forum that has been set up for this, and it's
called "Tuning Files..." it's here:

/tuning_files/

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Kyle Gann <kgann@earthlink.net>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kyle Gann <kgann@e...> wrote:
> > Complaining that people discuss tuning theory on the list
devoted to
> > tuning theory strikes me as bizarre, but it does happen.
>
> Cute, but I notice the name of the list is "tuning," not "tuning
> theory" - which seems to leave open the possibility of practical as
> well as theoretical issues.

It *is* open to practical as well as theoretical issues, but tuning
theory is obvious on-topic for this list. I've been savagely flamed
more than once for discussing tuning on this list, and that is not
acceptable in my view.

This mailing list is intended for exchanging ideas relevant to
alternate musical tunings: just intonation; paratactical tunings;
experimental instrument design; non-standard equal temperaments; MIDI
tuning-system specs; concert postings; gamelan tunings and other non-
western tunings; historical tunings; the experimental tunings of
Harry Partch, Lou Harrison, Martin Bartlett, James Tenney, and so on;
software reports; recordings; books; research sources, etcetera.

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kyle Gann <kgann@e...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_53090.html#53105

> > Complaining that people discuss tuning theory on the list
devoted to
> > tuning theory strikes me as bizarre, but it does happen.
>
> Cute, but I notice the name of the list is "tuning," not "tuning
> theory" - which seems to leave open the possibility of practical as
> well as theoretical issues.
>
> Kyle

Hi Kyle,

Actually, the *practical* branch of this list evolved into Jon
Szanto's "MakeMicroMusic" list which, incidentally, has been quite
active of late... I just got caught up over there....

J. Pehrson

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_53090.html#53107

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kyle Gann <kgann@e...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_53090.html#53105
>
> > > Complaining that people discuss tuning theory on the list
> devoted to
> > > tuning theory strikes me as bizarre, but it does happen.
> >
> > Cute, but I notice the name of the list is "tuning," not "tuning
> > theory" - which seems to leave open the possibility of practical
as
> > well as theoretical issues.
> >
> > Kyle
>
>
> Hi Kyle,
>
> Actually, the *practical* branch of this list evolved into Jon
> Szanto's "MakeMicroMusic" list which, incidentally, has been quite
> active of late... I just got caught up over there....
>
> J. Pehrson

***In case anybody doesn't have it, the URL is:

/makemicromusic/

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

Gene,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> It *is* open to practical as well as theoretical issues, but tuning
> theory is obvious on-topic for this list. I've been savagely flamed
> more than once for discussing tuning on this list, and that is not
> acceptable in my view.

Please, dear man, do get a grip. "Savagely flamed" is a pretty gross
overstatement, especially since you are more than able to deal out the
stuff yourself. I think most of the regular correspondents have come
to terms with many of our members proclivities - I certainly expect
theory, foremost, from you, but you have more than broadened out into
a lot of composition as well.

I would hasten to say that the 'complaints' have mostly arisen during
two particular scenarios:

1. when there is absolutely nothing *but* theory for an extended
period of time

2. when questions of an implementation manner are answered, or
directed, in a theoretical path.

It is pretty clear that there are avenues for people if they find this
forum too _anything_ for their tastes, and all we can ask is that all
parties view each other with respect, not simply for their viewpoints
but for their interests and musical journeys as well.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_53090.html#53109

>> It is pretty clear that there are avenues for people if they find
this
> forum too _anything_ for their tastes, and all we can ask is that
all
> parties view each other with respect, not simply for their
viewpoints
> but for their interests and musical journeys as well.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***This is a nice statement. I'll drink to this... but in a little
bit since I have some work to do right now...

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

On Sunday 11 April 2004 03:20 pm, Joseph Pehrson wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kyle Gann <kgann@e...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_53090.html#53105
>
> > > Complaining that people discuss tuning theory on the list
>
> devoted to
>
> > > tuning theory strikes me as bizarre, but it does happen.
> >
> > Cute, but I notice the name of the list is "tuning," not "tuning
> > theory" - which seems to leave open the possibility of practical as
> > well as theoretical issues.
> >
> > Kyle
>
> Hi Kyle,
>
> Actually, the *practical* branch of this list evolved into Jon
> Szanto's "MakeMicroMusic" list which, incidentally, has been quite
> active of late... I just got caught up over there....

I think that's true....I am so thankful that MMM exists. In general, to my
taste, I think McLaren has a point, in spite of his surlyness, that not alot
about how one might use these tunings, or composition with microtonality, or
reviews of recordings, or talks of a subjective nature---e.g. 'Listen to what
Wendy Carlos does in 'Poem to Bali' ', etc. is talked about on the tuning
list. I'm glad Jon took the initiative to start a group that cared about
music above math.

This is not to say that what goes on here is without value, just that it's
nice to know that there is a place to go to talk about the *art*, not the
science, of it all....I remember when I first started posting here some time
ago, and I tried to turn the conversation to aesthetic values by asking for
people's favorite tunings, one's they couldn't live without. The thread
lasted a day, and it was back to theory.

For me, I get really bored when the threads about a particular technical issue
('TOP' comes to mind) dominate the list for weeks on end, while it seems like
there are never discussions, mp3s, MIDI files, or snippets of the aesthetic
qualities of these tunings in actual use. (Ok, occasionally, there are)
Sometimes it's like there is no difference between 'tuning' and
'tuning-math', save that 'tuning-math' is hardcore and 'tuning' is sort of a
'tuning-math lite'.

So I *do* prefer the practical, 'let's hear it' aspect of MMM, although I
acknowledge that many fine ideas come out of the pure play with numbers.

Best,
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

OCEAN, n. A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made
for man -- who has no gills. -Ambrose Bierce 'The Devils Dictionary'

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 4/11/04 5:54 PM, Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_53090.html#53109
>
>>> It is pretty clear that there are avenues for people if they find
> this
>> forum too _anything_ for their tastes, and all we can ask is that
> all
>> parties view each other with respect, not simply for their
> viewpoints
>> but for their interests and musical journeys as well.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jon
>
> ***This is a nice statement. I'll drink to this... but in a little
> bit since I have some work to do right now...

Yes, I agree. And although it wasn't explicit I'd like to underline that
the "avenues" are not necessarily avenues "out" but rather avenues "within",
including asking for what you want and inspiring others by setting examples
of that.

The multi-media approach is of course a lot more work and I suspect that is
part of the reason why it is not happening more. For myself I am gearing up
(financially) to be able to make recordings through which I can share music
in the way (form/medium) I am inspired to.

I believe it will be a great thing though it will require more effort if we
go in this kind of direction by sharing as many dimensions as possible,
including:

* music that other's can hear
* what our experience of that music is
* what that is leading us each to in terms of development of "theory"
* things that are not quite "theory" but just the bare beginnings of new
understandings, things knocking at the door of our awareness which represent
new possibilities to us

It can be quite exciting. A fully "fleshed out" conversation with all of
these elements and others is likely to engage the interest of just about
everybody here, and I think for those of us who are interested it is a
worthy goal to make the extra effort to seek to include this
multi-dimensionality in what we write. Perhaps it is possible that nothing
"dry" ever need be written. To hang out and converse with people who have
either more or less facility in certain specialized forms of language than
we have takes some... something - I was going to say "effort" or perhaps
"persistence" - but what I am really getting at has more to do with having a
personal ease, a curiosity, a suspension of judgement, and and
acknowledgement of what we are attracted to, what we wish for, and the sense
of freedom and generosity to give words to all of that, as we experience it.

-Kurt

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

Gene,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> I've never flamed anyone for discussing tuning on this list, as you
> have.

Have you flamed for *any* reason?

> You flamed me for discussing 4375/4374-planar, and I think that
> was an appalling thing to do. Why did you do it?

At least it looks like I didn't "savagely" flame you! :) But, to be of
the utmost fairness, I'd certainly be willing to look back to that and
see if an apology is in order, even if in extreme retrospect and
hindsight. If you have a reference to when it was, send it to me
offlist, otherwise I'll do a search when I have a couple moments...

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Gene,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > Never for the crime of discussing tuning on the tuning list.
>
> So I imposed the "one-strike" rule. :) I'll reply further if you
ever
> decide to send me where/when this happened, as I can't find it
through
> an archive search.

These days you can't find anything with an archive search, but it was
back in 2001. It was a long way from Brian McLaren, but the point of
view seemed basically the same.

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> These days you can't find anything with an archive search, but it was
> back in 2001.

Holy crap, that is 3 years ago. Move on already! You and I have certainly come to a better understanding than that!!!

> It was a long way from Brian McLaren, but the point of
> view seemed basically the same.

Gad. Well, if anyone could make Brian and I bedfellows, I guess you might as well be the one...

Jon

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > These days you can't find anything with an archive search, but it
was
> > back in 2001.
>
> Holy crap, that is 3 years ago. Move on already! You and I have
certainly come to a better understanding than that!!!

It was memorable as the first time someone flamed me on one of the
Yahoo lists for attempting to make a positive contribution. It wasn't
the last. I think you might want to think long and hard on why you
would do such a thing.

🔗paolovalladolid <phv40@hotmail.com>

This little sub-topic was brought up on one of the threads here, so
I'll share what I recently learned on another Group...

The feature _can_ access messages posted before 2004, but you have to
keep clicking the "Next" link as it only searches a batch at a time
rather than the entire archive. I don't quite understand why Yahoo
chose to implement it this way, but that's how its done. I have
noticed though that Google can bring up old Yahoo Group/eGroups posts
(older than a year) on occasion but I do not know if this is governed
by the Make Messages Public/Private setting.

Paolo

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "paolovalladolid" <phv40@h...> wrote:
> The feature _can_ access messages posted before 2004, but you have to
> keep clicking the "Next" link as it only searches a batch at a time
> rather than the entire archive.

Yes, I realized that, and because it is a ridiculous way to do a search, I didn't sit here forever. Another way you can attempt is to put in a message number that you think might be that far back, and start searching there. Even with that it is one of the stupidest implementations I can imagine, and am guessing it was done to conserve server resources on big searches.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Yes, I realized that, and because it is a ridiculous way to do a
search, I didn't sit here forever. Another way you can attempt is to
put in a message number that you think might be that far back, and
start searching there. Even with that it is one of the stupidest
implementations I can imagine, and am guessing it was done to
conserve server resources on big searches.

Yahoo sucks. We need to consider moving once again.

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

Gene,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> Yahoo sucks. We need to consider moving once again.

You keep saying that (the former more often than the latter). I doubt it will happen, as it never has in the past (except for Mills -> eGroups, when Mills shut down the service). Best you could do is start a new list and see how many denizens you could convince to go over.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗David Beardsley <db@biink.com>

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

>Yahoo sucks. We need to consider moving once again.
>
It would be nice if we had a php forum. You can include graphics and
links in a message. And as soon as you post, everyone that
is on line can see the message.

Unfortunately, I don't have the web space,
the time or the programming skills.

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

🔗David Beardsley <db@biink.com>

David Beardsley wrote:

>Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>
>>Yahoo sucks. We need to consider moving once again.
>>
>t would be nice if we had a php forum. You can include graphics and
>links in a message. And as soon as you post, everyone that
>is on line can see the message.
>
>Unfortunately, I don't have the web space,
>the time or the programming skills.
>
Oh...and another thing. If some net kook
signs up, you can restrict his membership to
one folder so he can just rant away.

Quite a flexable format...

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 4/15/04 12:26 PM, David Beardsley <db@biink.com> wrote:

> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>
>> Yahoo sucks. We need to consider moving once again.
>>
> It would be nice if we had a php forum. You can include graphics and
> links in a message. And as soon as you post, everyone that
> is on line can see the message.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't have the web space,
> the time or the programming skills.

I would prefer not to use a system that depends on a web interface. I like
to have my own private message archive that I can organize freely (and
search) in my email program.

-Kurt

🔗David Beardsley <db@biink.com>

Kurt Bigler wrote:

>on 4/15/04 12:26 PM, David Beardsley <db@biink.com> wrote:
>
> >
>>Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>>Yahoo sucks. We need to consider moving once again.
>>>
>>> >>>
>>It would be nice if we had a php forum. You can include graphics and
>>links in a message. And as soon as you post, everyone that
>>is on line can see the message.
>>
>>Unfortunately, I don't have the web space,
>>the time or the programming skills.
>> >>
>
>I would prefer not to use a system that depends on a web interface. >
Still using dial up?

> I like
>to have my own private message archive that I can organize freely (and
>search) in my email program.
>
>-Kurt
>
It could probably be programed to work as a server for a bunch of email lists
at the same time.

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_53090.html#53154

> on 4/15/04 12:26 PM, David Beardsley <db@b...> wrote:
>
> > Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> >
> >> Yahoo sucks. We need to consider moving once again.
> >>
> > It would be nice if we had a php forum. You can include graphics
and
> > links in a message. And as soon as you post, everyone that
> > is on line can see the message.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I don't have the web space,
> > the time or the programming skills.
>
> I would prefer not to use a system that depends on a web
interface. I like
> to have my own private message archive that I can organize freely
(and
> search) in my email program.
>
> -Kurt

***Personally, I'm 180 degrees from this. I hate email and much
prefer web reading...

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 4/15/04 3:06 PM, David Beardsley <db@biink.com> wrote:

> Kurt Bigler wrote:
>
>> on 4/15/04 12:26 PM, David Beardsley <db@biink.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yahoo sucks. We need to consider moving once again.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It would be nice if we had a php forum. You can include graphics and
>>> links in a message. And as soon as you post, everyone that
>>> is on line can see the message.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, I don't have the web space,
>>> the time or the programming skills.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I would prefer not to use a system that depends on a web interface.
>>
> Still using dial up?

No. Conceivably a good web interface would be worth it. But clicking
around a web interface to move and delete messages (etc.) is never as
responsive as clicking in a local email client.

For searches, it is good to have a web archive available to provide more
sophistication when needed. But for simple things, just entering a word
gives me within a few seconds all the messages that use that word in the
subject (for example) which I can then scroll quickly through (at hundreds
of times the speed of a "next" operation in a web interface.

>
>> I like
>> to have my own private message archive that I can organize freely (and
>> search) in my email program.
>>
>> -Kurt
>>
> It could probably be programed to work as a server for a bunch of email
> lists
> at the same time.

If you have not used an email client to do this stuff perhaps you don't miss
it. Althugh Paul once told me his email client was slower than the yahoo
web interface (a shocking thought). But the machine has to be pretty slow
for an email client to be slower than a web interface even with a high-speed
connection. For me its not even a mater of "how many times faster". Rather
it is a question of things taking quite a bit of time in the web interface
that don't take any (noticeable) time at all on a local client.

Yahoo is particularly bad with its interspersed advertisements that make it
take longer yet to get to a message plus longer again to get back to the
message list (if you use the back button, which I generally do because it is
otherwise faster than clicking on a link).

Without all the disadvantages of yahoo, a web interface could conceivably be
merely quite a bit slower than a local client rather than staggeringly
slower as in the case of yahoo.

-Kurt

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 4/15/04 5:02 PM, Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>>> I would prefer not to use a system that depends on a web
>> interface.
>>
>> ***Personally, I'm 180 degrees from this. I hate email and much
>> prefer web reading...
>
> Thus it begins...

Jon, is this one of those things that wastes list bandwidth that you'd
rather not see? If so then I can certainly respect that and will
discontinue posting on this topic or move it to metatuning. It is good if
we can get focused, and perhaps leave the business of discussing management
issues with those who want to participate in that (e.g. at metatuning, for
lack of a better-focused forum).

If we could actually organize ourselves we could have all the lists be one,
but have a hierarchy of sublists for which each person can control their
subscription freely. (In this case the sublist would be "management" or
something like that, acknowledging that there is no such thing as active
management for this list.)

I wonder if there is a list manager that does that? Single list,
hierarchical subscription control. Then cross posting and the resulting
duplicates would probably become unnecessary, I would assume. I've never
had to deal with cross-posting though.

-Kurt

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗David Beardsley <db@biink.com>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

Kurt and Carl,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >Jon, is this one of those things that wastes list bandwidth that you'd
> >rather not see? If so then I can certainly respect that and will
> >discontinue posting on this topic or move it to metatuning.
>
> Yes; let's.

I'll just stay out of it, and right now (for obvious reasons) I just don't feel like reading/posting at meta. And I don't mean that comment to be snide, but in short order we see two diametrically opposed views on 'how the list should be', and this kind of group non-decision had always plagued tuning.

What would be optimal would be a strong voice or two that could just make something happen (and by that I mean taking responsibility to get the work done, and stick with it), and people could follow or not. Lacking that, well, I don't know what the solution is.

So, to save bandwidth, that'll be my last comments in public - you know how to reach me otherwise.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 4/15/04 7:17 PM, Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM> wrote:

> Kurt and Carl,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>>> Jon, is this one of those things that wastes list bandwidth that you'd
>>> rather not see? If so then I can certainly respect that and will
>>> discontinue posting on this topic or move it to metatuning.
>>
>> Yes; let's.
>
> I'll just stay out of it, and right now (for obvious reasons) I just don't
> feel like reading/posting at meta. And I don't mean that comment to be snide,
> but in short order we see two diametrically opposed views on 'how the list
> should be', and this kind of group non-decision had always plagued tuning.

I don't see diametrically opposed views as any kind of problem at all.
Indeed the lack of it would seem a little unhealthy in a group of any size.

However, in this case the consensus so far has the implication that any
solution we chose should support both web and email. No contradictions
there. I actually use both interfaces as needed, but prefer email for
normal use. No contradiction there either.

I don't imagine the need to post again on this topic here. If we want to
look into options we can bring this up at metatuning, where hopefully all
can learn to simply not participate in dialogs they won't want to be
involved in. :( ;)

-Kurt

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_53090.html#53164

> What would be optimal would be a strong voice or two that could
just make something happen (and by that I mean taking responsibility
to get the work done, and stick with it), and people could follow or
not. Lacking that, well, I don't know what the solution is.
>
>

**Hi Jon...

Well, as you recall, I am sure, several people in the past have
actually started up "alternate" lists hoping that people would
migrate to them and they never did. In many cases, I believe, it was
because Yahoo still had the superior technology, despite its faults...