erlich middle path paper: too math-ee?

BTW, I thought the 22-ET paper was very well-balanced-ly written, in the
terms you and Jon Szanto are talking about. It got technical here and
there, but always followable, and especially the beginning was a very
logical argument for the ET. So I guess I'd consider it a good "model"
to follow.

I'll look forward to reading this one.

C Bailey

xenharmonikon has always placed itself apart from the other publications in
allowing no constraints. If one can not go over the top here, where can one
do so?

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey <chris@m...> wrote:
>
> BTW, I thought the 22-ET paper was very well-balanced-ly written,
in the
> terms you and Jon Szanto are talking about. It got technical here
and
> there, but always followable, and especially the beginning was a
very
> logical argument for the ET. So I guess I'd consider it a
good "model"
> to follow.
>
> I'll look forward to reading this one.
>
> C Bailey

Actually, Chris, many of the people I work with on this list on
theory often, such as Joe Monzo and Joe Pehrson, have always found
the 22 paper impenetrable. I've tried to make this paper
significantly *less* impenetrable. Take a look at the new paper,
which is about 75% complete, and let me know what you think, as soon
as possible. I have to submit a complete paper soon!