Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Moderation

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> I wish our moderators would start moderating down age-old
> flames like 'rational numbers vs. something else'. Please
> people, just cut this s&&& out. Regardless of what you
> believe, do you really think there's any more to be gained
> in discussing it at this point?
>
> -Carl

As one of the moderators, I'd like to have more clearly stated rules
agreed upon by all of the group before I start blocking anything more
than obviously off topic spam. At the moment, this discussion is 1) on
topic, 2) still civil, and 3) hasn't started discussing personalities.
As such, there is hope that it might lead to enlightenment for some of
the new members who haven't been through the discussion before.
Personally, I'd pull the plug on the Brad and Johnny flame war before
I'd take any action here. But if the group wants the moderators to
take more aggressive action, we need to get those guidelines
established.

One of the other lists I subscribe to has the "Pizza Call" rule, where
any member is allowed to observe that the temperature on a given
thread seems to be escalating rapidly and suggest that the discussion
cease. If two other members second the call, then the discussion is
ended. The rule works well for that particular group, but this thread
has a long way to go to get to Pizza Call standards, so it clearly
wouldn't solve this particular discussion.

David Bowen
List Moderator #3

🔗Afmmjr@...

David, I don't know you at all. But your volunteering to censor the
discussion Brad and I have had is as close to censorship that I can imagine. When
people have devoted their lifetimes to tuning, they are passionate. You did
not need to add your own immoderate thoughts when it had nothing to do with
Carl's request. If you want me to stop speaking my thoughts on this list, I
will stop instantly. Just give me the word.

Johnny

**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

Yes Johnny I second your thoughts against censorship.
As I remember it you, Kraig and I have discussed some of these concepts, more than twenty years ago face-to-face before the "public" internet was in general use.

And since we still address eachother with civility, (between the wind-ups and sarcasm), I would assume that we are all sufficiently long in the microtonal tooth nowadays to ignore the bite marks if any should show through.

On 20 May 2008, at 03:48, Afmmjr@... wrote:

> David, I don't know you at all. But your volunteering to censor the > discussion Brad and I have had is as close to censorship that I can > imagine. When people have devoted their lifetimes to tuning, they > are passionate. You did not need to add your own immoderate > thoughts when it had nothing to do with Carl's request. If you want > me to stop speaking my thoughts on this list, I will stop > instantly. Just give me the word.
>
> Johnny
>
>
>
>
> Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family > favorites at AOL Food.
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

for information on LucyTuning go to:
http://www.lucytune.com

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

🔗David Bowen <dmb0317@...>

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:48 PM, <Afmmjr@...> wrote:
> David, I don't know you at all. But your volunteering to censor the
> discussion Brad and I have had is as close to censorship that I can
> imagine. When people have devoted their lifetimes to tuning, they are
> passionate. You did not need to add your own immoderate thoughts when it
> had nothing to do with Carl's request. If you want me to stop speaking my
> thoughts on this list, I will stop instantly. Just give me the word.
>
> Johnny

Johnny,

Personally, I don't want to do any censoring short of bouncing any
obvious spam and that's how I've interpreted the sentiments of the
group. Carl's comment raises the question of whether the moderators
should get involved in discussions that appear to be generating more
heat than light or where the two sides seem to be talking at cross
purposes.

If we are going to do any of it, I'd favor trying to keep flame wars
from erupting and that was my reason for mentioning your recent
discussion with Brad. We've had several round of it on the list and at
times the discussion has become more about the personalities of the
participants than on the merits of the facts. From my viewpoint as a
bystander, it appeared that we were headed into the realm of personal
attack again. Fortunately all of the participants backed away from the
attacks and the discussion cooled down and some mutual understanding
was achieved.

By contrast, the thread Carl was complaining about still seems quite
civil. I'll grant you that Robert doesn't seem to be getting the
points the others are making, but as long as the conversation
continues there may be hope that he'll get it eventually. We've
learned that good music can be made in a great variety of tunings and,
therefore, there are no right or wrong tunings, just those that work
better or worse with the composer's intent. But from a moderator's
point of view, this thread seems unlikely to erupt into flames and
hence not requiring moderator attention.

My point in all of this is: I prefer to keep out of the discussion as
long as it stays on topic. If others want to see more moderator
involvement, then we need to hammer out clear guidelines for that
involvement.

David Bowen

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

> As one of the moderators...

Ahem. With the due-est of respect, I have to ask aloud: I've been a
member of the tuning list since Mills College. Mills College days, for
deity's sake!

So, whenceforth the moderator_S?

My word, I knew that eons ago Mark Nowitzky had lost any interest in
an ongoing involvement with the list, but besides my fuzzy memory
recalling maybe Gene Ward Smith and Carl Lumma somehow being appointed
moderators (and believe me, I could be very wrong on that memory,
please correct me Carl if need be), I don't ever remember anything
about any other moderators.

Now???

After the incredible flame-wars of the past, the hellacious battle
royales of JI vs. ET, etc ad nauseum, NOW someone asks for moderation?

From a moderator I frankly don't recall from any past activity?

This surely beggars illumination.

Yours as a faithful reader,
and continuing composer,
and supporter of microtonalism,
in past composers and future endeavors,
I remain...

Ah, hell:

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

yes. i had this question also.

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Paths have a habit of crossing many times.
I miss this also!

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

Jon Szanto wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Kraig > Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> > yes. i had this question also.
>
> I hate you because I can't just drive 1.75 - 2.25 hours to hang out
> with you any more. Marriage is no excuse, either, pal.
>
> Just kidding. ;)
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "David Bowen" <dmb0317@...> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> > I wish our moderators would start moderating down age-old
> > flames like 'rational numbers vs. something else'. Please
> > people, just cut this s&&& out. Regardless of what you
> > believe, do you really think there's any more to be gained
> > in discussing it at this point?
> >
> > -Carl
>
> As one of the moderators, I'd like to have more clearly stated
> rules agreed upon by all of the group before I start blocking
> anything more than obviously off topic spam. At the moment, this
> discussion is 1) on topic, 2) still civil, and 3) hasn't started
> discussing personalities.
> As such, there is hope that it might lead to enlightenment for
> some of the new members who haven't been through the discussion
> before.
> Personally, I'd pull the plug on the Brad and Johnny flame war
> before I'd take any action here. But if the group wants the
> moderators to take more aggressive action, we need to get those
> guidelines established.

Hi David!

Good to hear we still have an alert moderator.

This community has never used any kind of (what would
traditionally called) moderation. But almost all large
academic discussion lists do.

Killing flames with personal attacks and such is one good
use for moderation. But many newsgroups also have topics,
discussed in a FAQ, that are basically no longer up for
discussion on the list. The #1 candidate for a topic of
this kind here is 'rational numbers are/aren't special'.
The #2 candidate is probably 'Bach's temperament'. We've
seen both these topics come up here in the past couple days
and swamp out other discussion, with exactly zero progress
on either topic to show for it.

I would stop short of banning 'Bach's temperament'.
But I would suggest we ban 'rational numbers are/aren't
special'. What does anyone else think?

I know people will cry censorship, and I'm a huge enemy
of it. But this list has been around almost 20 years and
maybe a change is in the cards.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Hi Jon,

> My word, I knew that eons ago Mark Nowitzky had lost any interest
> in an ongoing involvement with the list, but besides my fuzzy
> memory recalling maybe Gene Ward Smith and Carl Lumma somehow
> being appointed moderators (and believe me, I could be very wrong
> on that memory, please correct me Carl if need be), I don't ever
> remember anything about any other moderators.

I was once a moderator, but in keeping with a rule I proposed,
I passed the torch after a year (or two, it's been a while).
Unfortunately I think we still have the same moderators for
something like 3 or 4 years now. Nobody wants the job I guess.

Mark still owns the list. Additionally we have Joseph Pehrson,
David Bowen, and Gene Smith. Gene is gone, and he may have
formally turned in his moderator badge, I don't know. Joe: you
still here?

> After the incredible flame-wars of the past, the hellacious
> battle royales of JI vs. ET, etc ad nauseum, NOW someone asks
> for moderation?

Yes. I'm asking for moderation. Not necessarily to quell
flames, but to keep discussion away from well-worn dead ends.

> From a moderator I frankly don't recall from any past activity?

David has done an excellent job of staying out of the way, while
I believe reading almost everything. You should thank him.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

the subject came and went by itself did it not?

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, > "David Bowen" <dmb0317@...> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> > > I wish our moderators would start moderating down age-old
> > > flames like 'rational numbers vs. something else'. Please
> > > people, just cut this s&&& out. Regardless of what you
> > > believe, do you really think there's any more to be gained
> > > in discussing it at this point?
> > >
> > > -Carl
> >
> > As one of the moderators, I'd like to have more clearly stated
> > rules agreed upon by all of the group before I start blocking
> > anything more than obviously off topic spam. At the moment, this
> > discussion is 1) on topic, 2) still civil, and 3) hasn't started
> > discussing personalities.
> > As such, there is hope that it might lead to enlightenment for
> > some of the new members who haven't been through the discussion
> > before.
> > Personally, I'd pull the plug on the Brad and Johnny flame war
> > before I'd take any action here. But if the group wants the
> > moderators to take more aggressive action, we need to get those
> > guidelines established.
>
> Hi David!
>
> Good to hear we still have an alert moderator.
>
> This community has never used any kind of (what would
> traditionally called) moderation. But almost all large
> academic discussion lists do.
>
> Killing flames with personal attacks and such is one good
> use for moderation. But many newsgroups also have topics,
> discussed in a FAQ, that are basically no longer up for
> discussion on the list. The #1 candidate for a topic of
> this kind here is 'rational numbers are/aren't special'.
> The #2 candidate is probably 'Bach's temperament'. We've
> seen both these topics come up here in the past couple days
> and swamp out other discussion, with exactly zero progress
> on either topic to show for it.
>
> I would stop short of banning 'Bach's temperament'.
> But I would suggest we ban 'rational numbers are/aren't
> special'. What does anyone else think?
>
> I know people will cry censorship, and I'm a huge enemy
> of it. But this list has been around almost 20 years and
> maybe a change is in the cards.
>
> -Carl
>
>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

I would like to point out there was nothing in post about JI vs. ET. I had mentioned both equally and subsequently said nothing in favor or one over the other.

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> > My word, I knew that eons ago Mark Nowitzky had lost any interest
> > in an ongoing involvement with the list, but besides my fuzzy
> > memory recalling maybe Gene Ward Smith and Carl Lumma somehow
> > being appointed moderators (and believe me, I could be very wrong
> > on that memory, please correct me Carl if need be), I don't ever
> > remember anything about any other moderators.
>
> I was once a moderator, but in keeping with a rule I proposed,
> I passed the torch after a year (or two, it's been a while).
> Unfortunately I think we still have the same moderators for
> something like 3 or 4 years now. Nobody wants the job I guess.
>
> Mark still owns the list. Additionally we have Joseph Pehrson,
> David Bowen, and Gene Smith. Gene is gone, and he may have
> formally turned in his moderator badge, I don't know. Joe: you
> still here?
>
> > After the incredible flame-wars of the past, the hellacious
> > battle royales of JI vs. ET, etc ad nauseum, NOW someone asks
> > for moderation?
>
> Yes. I'm asking for moderation. Not necessarily to quell
> flames, but to keep discussion away from well-worn dead ends.
>
> > From a moderator I frankly don't recall from any past activity?
>
> David has done an excellent job of staying out of the way, while
> I believe reading almost everything. You should thank him.
>
> -Carl
>
>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

As of when, just curious. I don't remember a post from him in the past and now he is suggesting moderation.
it seems the subjects come and go and disappear rather quickly as the ones in question. It is much too late to be concerned about it.

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Kraig > Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> >
> > yes. i had this question also.
>
> If any of you actually read the list you'd know that
> David was a moderator.
>
> -Carl
>
>

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:

> But I would suggest we ban 'rational numbers are/aren't
> special'. What does anyone else think?

Hm, I know what you mean, but think the endless debate on this is
actually a good thing. There are always new people coming in, so it's
not a worn thing for them. There are also simple historical and
mathematical facts which bear repeating.

In another forum format, we could have stickies:

"Please notice that almost everyone here has no problem discussing
tuning in terms of ratios, cents, solfeggio or what-have-you."

"Kindly remember, when encountering a discussion about Bach's tuning,
that "Bach" was actually Francis Bacon (and Nikolai Tesla) and was
too busy encoding the map to the Holy Grail into the King James Bible
to tune anything, leaving this task to his stone-deaf neighbor John
"plenty of Latitude" Harrison."

"Any and all who wish to diss, discuss, wax poetic upon, or otherwise
mention in any way, the "music of the spheres" are advised to first
book a flight to Barsoom, where they will get to hear the genuine
article first hand. Please consider yourself warned that real thing
may not be what you expected, and is usually likened unto watching a
tropical sunset dipped in schmaltz while Pamela Anderson gives you a
guacamole enema".

-Cameron Bobro

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

B: Smithers! What's that strange sensation in my chest?
S: It's your sense of humor, sir. You're laughing.

It's true that it isn't fair to moderate as I'm suggesting
without a FAQ. And since the infighting here is so bad
we can never agree to a FAQ it's perhaps all doomed from
the start. But if we ever do, I nominate Cameron to write it!

-Carl

Cameron wrote...

> > But I would suggest we ban 'rational numbers are/aren't
> > special'. What does anyone else think?
>
> Hm, I know what you mean, but think the endless debate on this
> is actually a good thing. There are always new people coming in,
> so it's not a worn thing for them. There are also simple
> historical and mathematical facts which bear repeating.
>
> In another forum format, we could have stickies:
>
> "Please notice that almost everyone here has no problem discussing
> tuning in terms of ratios, cents, solfeggio or what-have-you."
>
> "Kindly remember, when encountering a discussion about Bach's
> tuning, that "Bach" was actually Francis Bacon (and Nikolai
> Tesla) and was too busy encoding the map to the Holy Grail into
> the King James Bible to tune anything, leaving this task to his
> stone-deaf neighbor John "plenty of Latitude" Harrison."
>
> "Any and all who wish to diss, discuss, wax poetic upon, or
> otherwise mention in any way, the "music of the spheres" are
> advised to first book a flight to Barsoom, where they will get
> to hear the genuine article first hand. Please consider
> yourself warned that real thing may not be what you expected,
> and is usually likened unto watching a tropical sunset dipped
> in schmaltz while Pamela Anderson gives you a guacamole enema".
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗David Beardsley <db@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗David Beardsley <db@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗David Beardsley <db@...>

🔗Mario Pizarro <piagui@...>

I am addressing this message to the moderator of tuning yahoogroups.

I copied below the note written by Mr. Charles Lucy.
First of all let me explain the following:
The phrase "Nature decided two ways of making good scales, only two" was the beginning of a discussion on the two ways of making scales. Reading the messages from the tuning group members I noticed that they use particular methods to define any scale which differ from the semitone factor method I use since decades ago. Since probably nobody might be interested on this matter, I cancelled what was already written about and didn´t notice that the mentioned phrase was not removed.

I do not see a reason for the disrespectful attack to my person commited by this fellow member so I reject such offense and suggest that he gives an explanation to the tuning group moderator mainly because he just declared about his own health condition. If we do nothing, any member would be cohibited of giving news on innovating scales and this is the case of the Piagui scale IV.

Sincerely

Mario Pizarro

piagui@...

Lima, September 05, 2008

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This guy's gotta be crazier than me;-)

(and at least twenty years too late)

On 3 Sep 2008, at 21:03, Mario Pizarro wrote:

Good news,

About two months ago I gave to the tuning members the details of the three Piagui scales. Piagui II presents a more uniform solution I think. The tone arrangement of this layout is given here again:

>Nature decided two ways of making good scales, only two.

Lima, September 3, 2008

MARIO PIZARRO

piagui@...

Oh yes, and what are these two ways of making good scales?

Charles Lucy
lucy@...

🔗Dave Seidel <dave@...>

Pure poetry, my friend.

Re-lurking...

Cameron Bobro wrote:
> Hm, I know what you mean, but think the endless debate on this is > actually a good thing. There are always new people coming in, so it's > not a worn thing for them. There are also simple historical and > mathematical facts which bear repeating. > > In another forum format, we could have stickies: > > "Please notice that almost everyone here has no problem discussing > tuning in terms of ratios, cents, solfeggio or what-have-you."
> > "Kindly remember, when encountering a discussion about Bach's tuning, > that "Bach" was actually Francis Bacon (and Nikolai Tesla) and was > too busy encoding the map to the Holy Grail into the King James Bible > to tune anything, leaving this task to his stone-deaf neighbor John > "plenty of Latitude" Harrison."
> > "Any and all who wish to diss, discuss, wax poetic upon, or otherwise > mention in any way, the "music of the spheres" are advised to first > book a flight to Barsoom, where they will get to hear the genuine > article first hand. Please consider yourself warned that real thing > may not be what you expected, and is usually likened unto watching a > tropical sunset dipped in schmaltz while Pamela Anderson gives you a > guacamole enema".
> > -Cameron Bobro

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

It's reassuring to read that at least one tunanik can appreciate sarcasm, ironic humour, and the need to avoid taking ourselves too seriously.

On 5 Sep 2008, at 18:13, Dave Seidel wrote:

> Pure poetry, my friend.
>
> Re-lurking...
>
> Cameron Bobro wrote:
> > Hm, I know what you mean, but think the endless debate on this is
> > actually a good thing. There are always new people coming in, so > it's
> > not a worn thing for them. There are also simple historical and
> > mathematical facts which bear repeating.
> >
> > In another forum format, we could have stickies:
> >
> > "Please notice that almost everyone here has no problem discussing
> > tuning in terms of ratios, cents, solfeggio or what-have-you."
> >
> > "Kindly remember, when encountering a discussion about Bach's > tuning,
> > that "Bach" was actually Francis Bacon (and Nikolai Tesla) and was
> > too busy encoding the map to the Holy Grail into the King James > Bible
> > to tune anything, leaving this task to his stone-deaf neighbor John
> > "plenty of Latitude" Harrison."
> >
> > "Any and all who wish to diss, discuss, wax poetic upon, or > otherwise
> > mention in any way, the "music of the spheres" are advised to first
> > book a flight to Barsoom, where they will get to hear the genuine
> > article first hand. Please consider yourself warned that real thing
> > may not be what you expected, and is usually likened unto watching a
> > tropical sunset dipped in schmaltz while Pamela Anderson gives you a
> > guacamole enema".
> >
> > -Cameron Bobro
>
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

for information on LucyTuning go to:
http://www.lucytune.com

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk