Pointless arguments

Some of you may have unlimited time to read this list, but I have better things to do with my time. Over 100 messages in one day is excessive. This list could use a posting limit. After the first few dozen times we've all heard the arguments over and over, there's no point in repeating them. Enough already! Let's talk about tuning for a change.

Agreed.

On 2/13/09, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
> Some of you may have unlimited time to read this list, but I have better
> things to do with my time. Over 100 messages in one day is excessive.
> This list could use a posting limit. After the first few dozen times
> we've all heard the arguments over and over, there's no point in
> repeating them. Enough already! Let's talk about tuning for a change.
>
>

--
Sent from my mobile device

I'm with you 100%.   Things have devolved into endless repetitive overkill.  I don't blame Kraig for opting out!

-- Mark Rankin
 

--- On Fri, 2/13/09, Ben Miller <bencole.miller@...> wrote:

From: Ben Miller <bencole.miller@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Pointless arguments
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 7:45 PM

Agreed.

On 2/13/09, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
> Some of you may have unlimited time to read this list, but I have better
> things to do with my time. Over 100 messages in one day is excessive.
> This list could use a posting limit. After the first few dozen times
> we've all heard the arguments over and over, there's no point in
> repeating them. Enough already! Let's talk about tuning for a change.
>
>

--
Sent from my mobile device

Turning on digest mode instead of individual messages may help.

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:

> Some of you may have unlimited time to read this list, but I have better
>
> things to do with my time. Over 100 messages in one day is excessive.
> This list could use a posting limit. After the first few dozen times
> we've all heard the arguments over and over, there's no point in
> repeating them. Enough already! Let's talk about tuning for a change.
>
>
>

A suggestion for users of MS Outlook (from Office, not the Outlook Express
from Windows).

If you are annoyed by too many emails from an online list/forum, it is very
easy (there is even a Wizard!) to set up a Rule, and even easier to keep it
updated, that automatically deletes emails with words in the subject
denoting something you are NOT interested in.
(My personal rule includes "Scriabin" and "Golden Ratio". )

This is a good way to avoid reading interchanges we are no longer interested
in, while still receiving new ones.

Kind regards

Claudio

Google mail allows you to filter as well. I bet yahoo does as well.

And if you are -really- pissed you can block people at the yahoo group.
Feel free to block me if my blackberry offends you.
In fact you can block just blackberry messages by searching within the body
of the text in your rule or filter.

Perhaps another list for heated arguments needed to be made and keep this
for mostly academic use?

To be honest, while I don't appreciate the swearing and insults - this
mailing list is at least active and used!

The vast majority of lists have little traffic and therefore little
interaction and therefore little worth.

And as far as I can guess 99% of the messages on this group is actually on
topic.

On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...>wrote:

> A suggestion for users of MS Outlook (from Office, not the Outlook
> Express from Windows).
>
> If you are annoyed by too many emails from an online list/forum, it is
> very easy (there is even a Wizard!) to set up a Rule, and even easier to
> keep it updated, that automatically deletes emails with words in the
> subject denoting something you are NOT interested in.
> (My personal rule includes "Scriabin" and "Golden Ratio". )
>
> This is a good way to avoid reading interchanges we are no longer
> interested in, while still receiving new ones.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Claudio
>
>

Dear friends,

I just received an offlist message suggesting that my post re filters in
Outlook might be understood as filtering "undesirable" or "poor" chatting.

Please note that this is not at all what I meant.

My message was just showing a practical way of filtering matters outside
one's own range of interest.

E.g. I specifically filter "Scriabin" "Golden Ratio", "5-limit" and others
NOT because I consider those subjects less worthy than others,
but because I am not particularly interested in them,
main interest is music from the 17th and 18th centuries

Kind regards,

Claudio

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
>
> Some of you may have unlimited time to read this list, but I have
> better things to do with my time. Over 100 messages in one day is
> excessive.
> This list could use a posting limit. After the first few dozen times
> we've all heard the arguments over and over, there's no point in
> repeating them. Enough already! Let's talk about tuning for a change.

We're nowhere near the historical highs, as can quickly be
seen from the list's homepage.

However, the quality of the conversation here has been quite
poor. I think the list could benefit from real moderation,
as I've said before.

-Carl

I totally agree.

May I suggest that posts containing personal insults, accusations, and
profanity be the priority for moderation.

These are common internet communication flash points that create problems.

Civil communication, even in disagreement, will go a long way to rectifying
this problem.

Also - not responding to off topic posts will help as well.

On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Herman Miller
> <hmiller@...> wrote:
> >
> > Some of you may have unlimited time to read this list, but I have
> > better things to do with my time. Over 100 messages in one day is
> > excessive.
> > This list could use a posting limit. After the first few dozen times
> > we've all heard the arguments over and over, there's no point in
> > repeating them. Enough already! Let's talk about tuning for a change.
>
> We're nowhere near the historical highs, as can quickly be
> seen from the list's homepage.
>
> However, the quality of the conversation here has been quite
> poor. I think the list could benefit from real moderation,
> as I've said before.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
> >
> > Some of you may have unlimited time to read this list, but I have
> > better things to do with my time. Over 100 messages in one day is
> > excessive.
> > This list could use a posting limit. After the first few dozen times
> > we've all heard the arguments over and over, there's no point in
> > repeating them. Enough already! Let's talk about tuning for a > change.
>
> We're nowhere near the historical highs, as can quickly be
> seen from the list's homepage.
>
> However, the quality of the conversation here has been quite
> poor. I think the list could benefit from real moderation,
> as I've said before.
>
I agree to moderation with the goal to improve the "quality of the conversation". Actually, I am surprise about these personal attacks here all the time. I am reading various mailinglists (e.g., computer music, computer science), and I never saw these things happen.

However, how should that be done? Any rules? Here is a first suggestion, just some plain netiquette.

http://sustainability.open.ac.uk/gary/netique.htm

Best
Torsten

>
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

I agree with Herman entirely.

Oz.

On Feb 14, 2009, at 5:22 AM, Herman Miller wrote:

> Some of you may have unlimited time to read this list, but I have
> better
> things to do with my time. Over 100 messages in one day is excessive.
> This list could use a posting limit. After the first few dozen times
> we've all heard the arguments over and over, there's no point in
> repeating them. Enough already! Let's talk about tuning for a change.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...> wrote:
> I agree to moderation with the goal to improve the "quality of
> the conversation". Actually, I am surprise about these personal
> attacks here all the time. I am reading various mailinglists
> (e.g., computer music, computer science), and I never saw these
> things happen.

Are they moderated? Most technical-topic mailing lists are.

-Carl

Dear Carl,

On Feb 16, 2009, at 8:04 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...> > wrote:
> > I agree to moderation with the goal to improve the "quality of
> > the conversation". Actually, I am surprise about these personal
> > attacks here all the time. I am reading various mailinglists
> > (e.g., computer music, computer science), and I never saw these
> > things happen.
>
> Are they moderated? Most technical-topic mailing lists are.
>
No, these lists are not moderated either. The difference is that they are focused on discussing (technical) problems, whereas here we often discuss views.

I feel the problem with the tuning list is that discussions often involve some value judgement. Sometimes these can be proved/disproved but often they cannot (we had several examples recently). In these technical-topic mailing lists I mentioned this does very rarely happen. For example, when you discuss the semantics of some existing programming language there cannot be any value judgement whatsoevery. This can only come is when discussing some speculative extension/change to/of the existing language -- which happens less often in these technical mailing lists, but is the standard case here (proposal of new tunings, new speculative theory etc).

Another problem on this list might be that people are often very devoted to some point of view, in particular if it cannot be proved/disproved.

Let me be clear that I don't feel being devoted to some view or value judgement is necessarily a problem as such. However, if some view cannot be proved/disproved then I suggest as a rule for discussions we simply state that there is a difference which cannot be resolved and leave it there without discussing it further.

Such a rule was likely suggested before already on this list, which begs the next question: if we agree on some rule, then how can we help it being observed. For example, in case of some heated debate where it is not possible to come to an agreement, someone else may send a brief message and suggest that this is the case to tone down the discussion...

Best
Torsten

>
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

---However, if some view cannot be proved/disproved then I suggest as a rule for discussions
---we simply state that there is a difference which cannot be resolved
---and leave it there without discussing it further.

   That's an excellent idea.  I, for one, will agree some of my arguments (IE my choice of using irrational ratios) is neither fully "prove-able" nor "disprovable"...and yet I have felt struggle in being called "ignorant of history and a bad listener" for the mere fact I'm "crazy" enough to even try such things.  For the record, I still believe in such things, even though I also fully understand how/why someone else would not.

-Michael

--- On Mon, 2/16/09, Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...> wrote:

From: Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Pointless arguments
To: "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Monday, February 16, 2009, 2:42 AM

Dear Carl,

On Feb 16, 2009, at 8:04 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@ ...>

> wrote:

> > I agree to moderation with the goal to improve the "quality of

> > the conversation" . Actually, I am surprise about these personal

> > attacks here all the time. I am reading various mailinglists

> > (e.g., computer music, computer science), and I never saw these

> > things happen.

>

> Are they moderated? Most technical-topic mailing lists are.

>

No, these lists are not moderated either. The difference is that they

are focused on discussing (technical) problems, whereas here we often

discuss views.

I feel the problem with the tuning list is that discussions often

involve some value judgement. Sometimes these can be proved/disproved

but often they cannot (we had several examples recently). In these

technical-topic mailing lists I mentioned this does very rarely

happen. For example, when you discuss the semantics of some existing

programming language there cannot be any value judgement whatsoevery.

This can only come is when discussing some speculative extension/

change to/of the existing language -- which happens less often in

these technical mailing lists, but is the standard case here

(proposal of new tunings, new speculative theory etc).

Another problem on this list might be that people are often very

devoted to some point of view, in particular if it cannot be proved/

disproved.

Let me be clear that I don't feel being devoted to some view or value

judgement is necessarily a problem as such. However, if some view

cannot be proved/disproved then I suggest as a rule for discussions

we simply state that there is a difference which cannot be resolved

and leave it there without discussing it further.

Such a rule was likely suggested before already on this list, which

begs the next question: if we agree on some rule, then how can we

help it being observed. For example, in case of some heated debate

where it is not possible to come to an agreement, someone else may

send a brief message and suggest that this is the case to tone down

the discussion.. .

Best

Torsten

>

>

> -Carl

>

>

>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Carl,
>
> On Feb 16, 2009, at 8:04 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@>
> > wrote:
> > > I agree to moderation with the goal to improve the "quality of
> > > the conversation". Actually, I am surprise about these personal
> > > attacks here all the time. I am reading various mailinglists
> > > (e.g., computer music, computer science), and I never saw these
> > > things happen.
> >
> > Are they moderated? Most technical-topic mailing lists are.
> >
> No, these lists are not moderated either. The difference is that they
> are focused on discussing (technical) problems, whereas here we often
> discuss views.
>
> I feel the problem with the tuning list is that discussions often
> involve some value judgement. Sometimes these can be proved/disproved
> but often they cannot (we had several examples recently). In these
> technical-topic mailing lists I mentioned this does very rarely
> happen. For example, when you discuss the semantics of some existing
> programming language there cannot be any value judgement whatsoevery.
> This can only come is when discussing some speculative extension/
> change to/of the existing language -- which happens less often in
> these technical mailing lists, but is the standard case here
> (proposal of new tunings, new speculative theory etc).
>
> Another problem on this list might be that people are often very
> devoted to some point of view, in particular if it cannot be proved/
> disproved.
>
> Let me be clear that I don't feel being devoted to some view or value
> judgement is necessarily a problem as such. However, if some view
> cannot be proved/disproved then I suggest as a rule for discussions
> we simply state that there is a difference which cannot be resolved
> and leave it there without discussing it further.
>
> Such a rule was likely suggested before already on this list, which
> begs the next question: if we agree on some rule, then how can we
> help it being observed. For example, in case of some heated debate
> where it is not possible to come to an agreement, someone else may
> send a brief message and suggest that this is the case to tone down
> the discussion...
>
> Best
> Torsten
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > -Carl
> >
> >The list is fine. Heated debate is what you would expect from
intelligent people and tuning is a more philosophical issue than mere
troubleshooting computer problems. Imposing "rules of grammar" is an
old fashioned concept (invented by Frege and Russell) and is just a
way of trying to reduce transcendental topics to a "meat and potatoes"
type of scientific control and analysis, thereby killing them.
Besides, only people with a specialized interest will join the list.
And if some people don't like being criticised, then boo hoo.
> >
>
-Rick