Jargon

Let me join those bemoaning the quantity of jargon and idiolect on this list. I arguably know as much about tuning as most folks, but I find many posts on the list unintelligible.

The other factor that makes the list unreadable (or too much trouble to bother with) is posts consisting of big blocks of twice, thrice, or even more times quoted or regurgitated, weirdly line-wrapped material such as the following, which includes 30 lines of quoted material plus two lines of new content:

===========================================================

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

/tuning/topicId_54118.html#54436

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_54118.html#54126
> >
> > > You could tune the open strings to any subdivision of 12 (
> > including a 7 subset of 72
> > > changing at the octave to a different subset, thereby getting
the
> > most possible tones
> > > out of the system. Of course you could do the same thing in 24
> > >
> >
> >
> > ***Just out of curiosity, was it James Tenney who did the piece
> with
> > 7 harps.
>
> 6 of them.
>
> > Was that a 72-tET piece?
>
> Yup!
>
> >Does anybody remember details
> > about this tuning... I forget...
>
> Each harp was in 12-equal relative to itself, but tuned 1/12-tone
> away from a neighboring harp. Between the six harps, all 72 notes
> were attainable.

***Oh sure! Now I remember. Now, *that's* a practical tuning (as
long as you have 6 harps! :)

====================================================

Sure, the easiest thing is to get a message, hit reply, type a couple of lines of content, and hit the send button. But the end result is digests consisting of 60-70% regurgitated material, much of it unnecessary or irrelevant.

If part of a post that you are responding to is necessary to make your response understandable, then by all means include it, *edited and formatted in a manner that makes its significance clear*, but don't just keep flinging the same post back onto the list again and again if you want your posts to be readable.

I, for one, just don't have the time to wade through that junk to find where the content might be hiding.

--DBD

--
==========================================================================

David B. Doty dbd@justintonation.net
Just Intonation Network http://www.justintonation.net
Editorial:(650) 694-4727 JI Store: (415) 864-8123 535 Stevenson Street
FAX: (415) 864-8726 San Francisco, CA 94103

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Just Intonation Network <dbd@j...> wrote:

> Let me join those bemoaning the quantity of jargon and idiolect on
> this list. I arguably know as much about tuning as most folks, but I
> find many posts on the list unintelligible.

Does it matter to anyone if we make progress in tuning theory, or is
thinking about tuning simply a mistake?

>The other factor that makes the list unreadable (or too much trouble
>to bother with) is posts consisting of big blocks of twice, thrice,
>or even more times quoted or regurgitated, weirdly line-wrapped
>material such as the following, which includes 30 lines of quoted
>material plus two lines of new content:

I used to remove much more of it, but I got my head bitten off for
doing so.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Just Intonation Network <dbd@j...> wrote:
> Does it matter to anyone if we make progress in tuning theory, or is
> thinking about tuning simply a mistake?

Yeah, avoid the issue.

I've always thought it only made sense, but also avoided both
inaccuracies as well as perceived arrogance, for the person that comes
up with a term to document it, both in place and in a format that
would somehow 'live' or be able to be referenced.

When one doesn't (and more importantly, doesn't seem to care), and
creates a steady stream of information, both in content and in its
description and methodology, it really begs the question: who should
do it? Some flunky? An undergrad?

It seems, Gene, like you are carrying over ways of working that are
common to your principle field of endeavor (you have at least alluded
as much), but one would hope that you could see that even among your
devoted supporters, and even lesser fans, you not only don't seem to
see the value of a better documentation (on your part), a possible
economizing of the invention/naming craze, or simply the fact that an
awful lot of it is [needlessly] impenetrable for the bulk of the readers.

I am sure the methodologies (and lack thereof) and quirks of
"musicians" that I bring to this list, as well as some of the other
"musicians", must drive you up a wall. I know I've apologized for it,
but I've also made big efforts to be explanatory in some of those
issues (as have others). By stonewalling and ridiculing some of these
attempts at constructive criticism (I can't imagine anyone doing a
better job of being conciliatory and collegeal as Carl has), you just
harden up the impression that you more than likely feel the same way
as Dick Cheney felt about Patrick Leahy.

The hard part is I don't know anyone around here who could illuminate
what it is like from your perspective, because I don't think anyone
else is as advanced in another discipline as you are in yours. But it
appears you don't even care. Am I wrong on the last one?

Cheers,
Jon

> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
>Subject: Re: Jargon
>
>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Just Intonation Network <dbd@j...> wrote:
>
>> Let me join those bemoaning the quantity of jargon and idiolect on
>> this list. I arguably know as much about tuning as most folks, but I
>> find many posts on the list unintelligible.
>
>Does it matter to anyone if we make progress in tuning theory, or is
>thinking about tuning simply a mistake?

Your response seems to me to be a non sequitur. How will anyone know whether you have made progress in tuning theory or not if you are unable to express your results in a manner that can be understood by more than the dozen or so people who make most of the posts on this list?

More generally, I think it matters only if it ultimately results in better music being created. Otherwise, it seems like an idle, though mostly harmless, pursuit. I think about tuning a lot these days, but mostly in terms of how it applies to my compositions in progress. I rarely think of it in the abstract anymore.

--DBD

--
==========================================================================
David B. Doty dbd@justintonation.net
Just Intonation Network http://www.justintonation.net
Editorial:(650) 694-4727 JI Store: (415) 864-8123 535 Stevenson Street
FAX: (415) 864-8726 San Francisco, CA 94103

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

> The hard part is I don't know anyone around here who could illuminate
> what it is like from your perspective, because I don't think anyone
> else is as advanced in another discipline as you are in yours. But it
> appears you don't even care. Am I wrong on the last one?

I do care, which was part of the idea behind my web site, on which I
should obviously do more work. But it seems to me a lot of the
criticism boils down to saying we don't *want* to make progress
understanding tuning, and that people who try are troublemakers.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Just Intonation Network <dbd@j...> wrote:
> > From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> >Subject: Re: Jargon

> Your response seems to me to be a non sequitur. How will anyone know
> whether you have made progress in tuning theory or not if you are
> unable to express your results in a manner that can be understood by
> more than the dozen or so people who make most of the posts on this
> list?

> More generally, I think it matters only if it ultimately results in
> better music being created.

It helps with mine. If it does not help with yours, so be it; but why
cannot someone who is making a contribution be left somewhat
unmolested? I both create theory and music. Why does that mean I am a
useless dabbler?

Otherwise, it seems like an idle, though
> mostly harmless, pursuit. I think about tuning a lot these days, but
> mostly in terms of how it applies to my compositions in progress. I
> rarely think of it in the abstract anymore.

And are you certain that you still know as much about tuning as
anyone? Are you paying attention to what is not just new theory, but
new music making use of the theory, or should that simply be dismissed
with the comment you are tired of reading about things you haven't
been paying attention to?

Does that mean if more of us bite your head off for not doing it, do we
win.

Carl Lumber wrote:

> >The other factor that makes the list unreadable (or too much trouble
> >to bother with) is posts consisting of big blocks of twice, thrice,
> >or even more times quoted or regurgitated, weirdly line-wrapped
> >material such as the following, which includes 30 lines of quoted
> >material plus two lines of new content:
>
> I used to remove much more of it, but I got my head bitten off for
> doing so.
>
> -Carl
>

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

when people look back on this list it will be seen as the school of
temperment monotheism

at this point on this list, if you don't have something to contribute to
this, you might as well shut up and or get off
because the elite will not even entertain that you ideas could possibly be
valid

> Does it matter to anyone if we make progress in tuning theory, or is
> thinking about tuning simply a mistake?

-- -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, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
>
> when people look back on this list it will be seen as the school of
> temperment monotheism

My last post on just intonation was today. When was yours?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> > The hard part is I don't know anyone around here who could
illuminate
> > what it is like from your perspective, because I don't think
anyone
> > else is as advanced in another discipline as you are in yours.
But it
> > appears you don't even care. Am I wrong on the last one?
>
> I do care, which was part of the idea behind my web site, on which
I
> should obviously do more work. But it seems to me a lot of the
> criticism boils down to saying we don't *want* to make progress
> understanding tuning, and that people who try are troublemakers.

Gene,

Many of us are grateful for the new techniques you've taught us over
on tuning-math and the sheer quantity of number-crunching you have
done on behalf of tuning. Such selflessness is to be admired.

But I beg you, on bended knees, to please consider that you may have
a blind-spot in regard to what is likely to be intelligible to most
others. Please consider that perhaps most people's brains are wired
differently to yours (at least on this list). Or maybe it's the rest
of us who have the blind spot. Maybe you're like someone with normal
colour vision trying to explain certain distinctions of hue to a
population of people who are red-green colour-blind. You'll just
have to accept the apparently imprecise language that
your "translators" find necessary to get the ideas across.

What surprises me most is that Paul Erlich, a brilliant "translator"
in general, seems to have been seduced by the "name game". What say
you Paul?

I don't think anyone is against progress in tuning, but it isn't
really progress if no one can understand it.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:

> What surprises me most is that Paul Erlich, a brilliant "translator"
> in general, seems to have been seduced by the "name game". What say
> you Paul?

I don't think our naming temperaments is a very big deal, one way or
another. I simply find it easier to talk about and remember them this
way. Words such as "val" and "monzo" are another story; I think adding
this sort of terminology to the vocabulary represents a real advance;
to start with, it identifies important concepts merely by the fact of
naming them, and provides a starting point in understanding how they
work simply from the definitions. You do lose something if you don't
grasp that a free abelian group is not, in fact, a vector space, but
admittedly the conceptual advantages of drawing such distinctions is
not going to be important for most of us, and if you don't need to
worry about the difference between a kernel and the nullspace, then
don't worry about it. Formulating TOP tuning in terms normed vector
spaces is another similar example. That I do so on my web pages can do
no harm, and is likely to be helpful to people with a certain math
background. Why gnaw on my leg because I do things like that? Isn't it
better to have such web pages than not to have them?

> I don't think anyone is against progress in tuning, but it isn't
> really progress if no one can understand it.

But it seems people can. Herman has been doing fine not only computing
wedgies, but applying the results in actual music. Manuel understood
them well enough to put them in the new version of Scala, and Paul
well enough to argue with me over the relative merits of multivals
versus multimonzos. So wedgies, to take this one example, don't seem
to be a boil on the butt of progress, whatever many people may think.
If they don't like them, they can refrain from using them, after all.

It's not as if I was Mazzola and was asking you to learn topos theory
so that we could discuss, more or less, music on a level too abstract
for anyone to actually apply. There's a clear connection to actual
music making involved in all of this.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> I don't think our naming temperaments is a very big deal, one way
or
> another. I simply find it easier to talk about and remember them
this
> way. Words such as "val" and "monzo" are another story; I think
adding
> this sort of terminology to the vocabulary represents a real
advance;

Sigh. At least I tried.

> to start with, it identifies important concepts merely by the fact
of
> naming them, and provides a starting point in understanding how
they
> work simply from the definitions.

Definitions which very few people know how to look up, if they can
be bothered, and even fewer people can understand when they find
them.

> You do lose something if you don't
> grasp that a free abelian group is not, in fact, a vector space,
but
> admittedly the conceptual advantages of drawing such distinctions
is
> not going to be important for most of us,

Thanks for that concession.

> and if you don't need to
> worry about the difference between a kernel and the nullspace, then
> don't worry about it. Formulating TOP tuning in terms normed vector
> spaces is another similar example. That I do so on my web pages
can do
> no harm, and is likely to be helpful to people with a certain math
> background. Why gnaw on my leg because I do things like that?
Isn't it
> better to have such web pages than not to have them?

I have no objection to any explanations you put on your own web
pages. But if you think they help more than about 5 people on this
list, I think you're sadly mistaken.

> > I don't think anyone is against progress in tuning, but it isn't
> > really progress if no one can understand it.
>
> But it seems people can.

Of course I should have written "practically no one".

> Herman has been doing fine not only computing
> wedgies, but applying the results in actual music. Manuel
understood
> them well enough to put them in the new version of Scala, and Paul
> well enough to argue with me over the relative merits of multivals
> versus multimonzos.

That's 4 or 5 people on tuning-math. This list has nearly 700
members.

> There's a clear connection to actual
> music making involved in all of this.

Well it sure aint clear to me, and a lot of other people.

The problem isn't so much the subject matter, it's the fact that you
insist on using, on this list, either a language foreign to most of
us (advanced pure math, which is fine on tuning-math), or inventing
your own as you go along, instead of building from what we already
know. When some of us take the trouble to understand what you are
saying and translate it into music/tuning terms, you not only refuse
to use any such terminology yourself, but complain that our language
is too imprecise or too wordy, implying that _we_ shouldn't use it
either.

hi David,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Just Intonation Network <dbd@j...>
wrote:

> The other factor that makes the list unreadable (or too
> much trouble to bother with) is posts consisting of big
> blocks of twice, thrice, or even more times quoted or
> regurgitated, weirdly line-wrapped material
>
> <snip>
>
> If part of a post that you are responding to is necessary
> to make your response understandable, then by all means
> include it, *edited and formatted in a manner that makes
> its significance clear*, but don't just keep flinging the
> same post back onto the list again and again if you want
> your posts to be readable.
>
> I, for one, just don't have the time to wade through that
> junk to find where the content might be hiding.

i strongly agree with you !!!!!

i nearly always edit my posts with care, to make them as
legible as possible. (intelligible is another matter ...)

this inlcudes careful snipping and rearranging of quoted
text, so that it's easy to read, and easy to see where
my response is. it would be nice if others did this too.

lots of white space is good too.

-monz

hi Gene,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Just Intonation Network <dbd@j...>
wrote:
>
> > Let me join those bemoaning the quantity of jargon
> > and idiolect on this list. I arguably know as much
> > about tuning as most folks, but I find many posts on
> > the list unintelligible.
>
> Does it matter to anyone if we make progress in tuning theory,
> or is thinking about tuning simply a mistake?

it sure matters to me that we keep making progress in
tuning theory ... but the focus of this particular list
is not supposed to be only on theory.

this is the big all-encompassing tuning list that's supposed
to have posts about all of it: theory, instruments,
performances, recordings, etc.

theory is good here too, but presented in such a way
that the general reader can understand it.

the tuning-math list is the place to do the battle-ground
theory work.

-monz

hi Gene,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> > The hard part is I don't know anyone around here who
> > could illuminate what it is like from your perspective,
> > because I don't think anyone else is as advanced in another
> > discipline as you are in yours. But it appears you don't
> > even care. Am I wrong on the last one?
>
> I do care, which was part of the idea behind my web site,
> on which I should obviously do more work. But it seems to
> me a lot of the criticism boils down to saying we don't
> *want* to make progress understanding tuning, and that
> people who try are troublemakers.

i would be *very*, **very** happy to put definition
after definition into my Encyclopaedia to illustrate
what you're talking about.

... but the problem there is that *i* don't understand you
either, most of the time.

if you'd be willing to work more with me on helping
me to comprehend your work, i could create some nice
webpages about it.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:

> The problem isn't so much the subject matter, it's the fact that you
> insist on using, on this list, either a language foreign to most of
> us (advanced pure math, which is fine on tuning-math), or inventing
> your own as you go along, instead of building from what we already
> know.

I don't put math stuff on this list unless the thread arises here, but
making a hard and fast rule out of math phobia has the effect of
telling people that they don't *want* tuning to be discussed, and that
attempts to socially censor such discussions takes precedence over the
actual progress of the conversation. The tuning-math ghettoization
serves a useful purpose, but if it becomes a situation where people
are not free to respond to a thread in a reasonable manner then I find
that objectionable.

When some of us take the trouble to understand what you are
> saying and translate it into music/tuning terms, you not only refuse
> to use any such terminology yourself, but complain that our language
> is too imprecise or too wordy, implying that _we_ shouldn't use it
> either.

Is the definition of a "music/tuning" term one Dave Keenan likes? Your
highly arcane discussions with George hardly involved standard
terminology, after all. Schisminos?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_54512.html#54544

> hi David,
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Just Intonation Network <dbd@j...>
> wrote:
>
> > The other factor that makes the list unreadable (or too
> > much trouble to bother with) is posts consisting of big
> > blocks of twice, thrice, or even more times quoted or
> > regurgitated, weirdly line-wrapped material
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > If part of a post that you are responding to is necessary
> > to make your response understandable, then by all means
> > include it, *edited and formatted in a manner that makes
> > its significance clear*, but don't just keep flinging the
> > same post back onto the list again and again if you want
> > your posts to be readable.
> >
> > I, for one, just don't have the time to wade through that
> > junk to find where the content might be hiding.
>
>
>
> i strongly agree with you !!!!!
>
> i nearly always edit my posts with care, to make them as
> legible as possible. (intelligible is another matter ...)
>
> this inlcudes careful snipping and rearranging of quoted
> text, so that it's easy to read, and easy to see where
> my response is. it would be nice if others did this too.
>
> lots of white space is good too.
>
>
>
> -monz

***The post of mine that Doty criticized really didn't have all that
much extra stuff in it, I'm sorry... There needed to be a
little "running up" to my comment.

I love how Doty comes in here once a year, criticizes the list, and
leaves again... great participant...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

> i would be *very*, **very** happy to put definition
> after definition into my Encyclopaedia to illustrate
> what you're talking about.

Did you have some specific words in mind? I check what you have
already, but something someone thinks they need or want would be a
good place to start. Having said that, something I would like would be
definitions for all of the terms used by Scala when analyzing scales;
Manuel and Carl would be helpful for that.

hi Gene,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> > i would be *very*, **very** happy to put definition
> > after definition into my Encyclopaedia to illustrate
> > what you're talking about.
>
> Did you have some specific words in mind? I check what
> you have already, but something someone thinks they need
> or want would be a good place to start. Having said that,
> something I would like would be definitions for all of
> the terms used by Scala when analyzing scales;
> Manuel and Carl would be helpful for that.

i would be happy to put those Scala-term definitions
in the Encyclopaedia, too.

there are terms that i see again and again in your
posts:

- badness
- bimonzo
- multimonzo
- copoptimal
etc.

i don't even understand "poptimal", and i have a page for that!

it's only partly a matter of new webpages and new
definitions. mostly, what i need to do is understand
your terms and concepts for which i already have
definitions, and create lots of graphics to illustrate
them. that's what i'd really like help with.

(and the poptimal page already has that too!)

-monz

Hi Monz-

When I was looking at Paul's draft of his latest paper, I went to your site
to look up some terms, and couldn't find most of them, so it might be useful
to look at his paper and add any terms you find there that aren't already in
your encyclopedia, or perhaps cross reference them if they appear under a
different name.

For example:

"Tenny lattice"
"TOP tuning"
"Linear Temperaments"
"Horagram"

etc.

keep up the good work!

Dante

hi Dante,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:

> Hi Monz-
>
> When I was looking at Paul's draft of his latest paper,
> I went to your site to look up some terms, and couldn't
> find most of them, so it might be useful to look at his
> paper and add any terms you find there that aren't already
> in your encyclopedia, or perhaps cross reference them if
> they appear under a different name.

thanks, that's a great idea.

> For example:
>
> "Tenny lattice"
> "TOP tuning"
> "Linear Temperaments"
> "Horagram"
>
> etc.

i do have a definition for "linear temperament" ...
it wasn't showing up because i changed the filename
in the links. i've been doing a lot of that lately.

but i do still need definitions for all the others.
anyone?

-monz

on 7/12/04 6:38 AM, monz <monz@attglobal.net> wrote:

> hi Gene,
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>>
>>> The hard part is I don't know anyone around here who
>>> could illuminate what it is like from your perspective,
>>> because I don't think anyone else is as advanced in another
>>> discipline as you are in yours. But it appears you don't
>>> even care. Am I wrong on the last one?
>>
>> I do care, which was part of the idea behind my web site,
>> on which I should obviously do more work. But it seems to
>> me a lot of the criticism boils down to saying we don't
>> *want* to make progress understanding tuning, and that
>> people who try are troublemakers.
>
> i would be *very*, **very** happy to put definition
> after definition into my Encyclopaedia to illustrate
> what you're talking about.
>
> ... but the problem there is that *i* don't understand you
> either, most of the time.
>
> if you'd be willing to work more with me on helping
> me to comprehend your work, i could create some nice
> webpages about it.
>
> -monz

This would be great. A problem might be that the math is *not* that simple
to grasp, no matter how well it is explained. Well, I may be wrong, but to
learn how to explain such stuff in what I would call an "experiential" mode
is something that I think will take a committed team of people a long time
to do. On the other hand even having 1/100000th of what Gene knows able to
be easily understanable by more others would probably be worth some hard
work.

I actually had a vision of this a couple days ago when the whole Jargon
thing first came up. The vision was for us to somehow acquire expertise and
subtlety in communication that would allow all these different points of
view that we have here to be inter-translated. I thought of forming a
non-profit and seeking a grant to fund full-time employment of people whose
job would be to learn how to become professional translators among the
points of view on the tunigns list, and to always be present.

This was just a fantasy, of course. Not that something like it is not
conceivably doable. I do hope to learn something about grants and be able
to seek funding in relation to some tunings-related projects that have real
applications to music. Yet this other idea, of injecting some real energy
into facilitating communication in an amazing group such as this:
potentially amazing things could be learned from this which might have
applicability to larger more highly-politicized situations in the world.
For now, this is an interesting idea.

And, returning to the more practical, if some of Gene's stuff gets
"translated" by any method, I think that will be a great thing.

Still, shouldn't we try to put some energy into getting some funding? This
is another reason for forming a tunings non-profit. It is very likely that
at some point I *will* form a tunings non-profit. What I don't understand
yet is how many such non-profits should exist. What are the implications of
having a larger broadly-defined non-profit versus several smaller, more
narrowly-defined and independently-managed non-profits? Perhaps it would be
a good starting point just to have a single small broadly-defined tunings
nonprofit.

-Kurt

>Still, shouldn't we try to put some energy into getting some
>funding? This is another reason for forming a tunings non-profit.
>It is very likely that at some point I *will* form a tunings
>non-profit. What I don't understand yet is how many such non-
>profits should exist. What are the implications of having a
>larger broadly-defined non-profit versus several smaller, more
>narrowly-defined and independently-managed non-profits? Perhaps
>it would be a good starting point just to have a single small
>broadly-defined tunings nonprofit.

Hi Kurt,

It's my feeling that whatever body represents the tuning
list, whether it's just a loose-knit group of moderators
or a full-blown non-profit, it should have no other
concern. Just the simple charter of fostering communication
of tuning folks on the internet.

-Carl

on 7/12/04 6:24 AM, monz <monz@attglobal.net> wrote:

> Just Intonation Network <dbd@j...> wrote:
>
>> The other factor that makes the list unreadable (or too
>> much trouble to bother with) is posts consisting of big
>> blocks of twice, thrice, or even more times quoted or
>> regurgitated, weirdly line-wrapped material
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I, for one, just don't have the time to wade through that
>> junk to find where the content might be hiding.
>
> i strongly agree with you !!!!!
>
> i nearly always edit my posts with care, to make them as
> legible as possible. (intelligible is another matter ...)
>
> this inlcudes careful snipping and rearranging of quoted
> text, so that it's easy to read, and easy to see where
> my response is. it would be nice if others did this too.
>
> lots of white space is good too.
>
> -monz

Here are a couple of other things to be aware of: some of us (including me)
when we read these message with quoted sections see them as color coded,
with each level of quoting appearing in a different color. This makes it
*much* easier to quickly find and read just the *new* material and refer to
the quoted material only as needed.

I see that this color coding does *not* happen in the yahoo interface. This
is truly unfortunate since I know a lot of people use the yahoo interface.

The reason I bring this up is that when you have different people using
different tools, it creates different sets of values that then create more
appearance of conflict. People like me basically never encounter the
"excessive quoted material" problem, just because the problem is so minor
because my interface (my tools) make it a non-problem. Therefore I will not
spontaneously develop the same set of values in connection with solving this
problem for others.

Unfortunately I can't offer a good solution althogh I wanted to point this
out. But if you have never tried it, consider trying the email interface if
it is at all an option for you, and get an email program that color codes
the quoting, and see if this doesn't *entirely* change your experience and
also (over time) your tendencies in how you compose your messages.

Another problem is that some email clients or very likely the yahoo
interface badly messes up the quotes. The typical form of this is that
quoted lines get split in two, with alternate lines having the incorrect
quoting level as in:

>>> this is some quoted material, and
> although
>>> it looks like two people are talking
> there is
>>> really only one

I used to spend a lot of time *fixing* these messed up quotes, only to see
the same material messed up again the next time it ran through the system.
So I gave up, and eventually found that I had no trouble making visual
allowances for the messed up quotes in 99% of the cases. But this was
becuase although the quotes were wrong, at least the material was still
quoted and I could still visually (because it was colored instead of black)
distinguish it from the new material written by the poster of the message.
Also my eye got used to the above pattern and I can now quickly visually
translate the entire block (such as shown above) into a single "color".

Anyway it seems likely that anyone like David who visits here infrequently
will not have any opportunity to get "used to" this extraneous quoting mess.

This is another reason to get the hell out of yahoo. Monz are you ready to
take over yet?

-Kurt

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

/tuning/topicId_54512.html#54597
> Still, shouldn't we try to put some energy into getting some
funding? This
> is another reason for forming a tunings non-profit. It is very
likely that
> at some point I *will* form a tunings non-profit. What I don't
understand
> yet is how many such non-profits should exist. What are the
implications of
> having a larger broadly-defined non-profit versus several smaller,
more
> narrowly-defined and independently-managed non-profits? Perhaps it
would be
> a good starting point just to have a single small broadly-defined
tunings
> nonprofit.
>
> -Kurt

***Any continuing discussion of this should go on metatuning, but
based upon my fundraising experience (and I do have some...) it would
be very hard to raise money for such a project. At the moment, in
fact, it is very difficult to raise money for *any* arts projects and
certainly nothing so esoteric as alternate tuning.

The funding that is possible in the current (political) climate is
social services funding. Since the goverment has left some of this
off, it's an area where foundations and corporations are donating.

It's impelling to give money to an organization that assists a
crippled child... But alternate tuning....??

JP