maybe you should switch to decaf?

Dante

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xenharmonic [mailto:xed@...]
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 4:03 PM
> To: crazy_music@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cm] More hysterical name-calling from the ATL
>
>
> Jacob asked a question that centered around why the ATL has fallen
> silent.
> As someone who was a member of the ATL back in 1993 until 1997,
> when it degenerated into its current state of brain-death and
> backbiting, I have some knowledge about that situation.
> The reason the Alternative Wanking List has fallen silent is
> that members of the lunatic fringe who waste their
> lives with musically meaningless numerology like TOPS and
> Blackjack and absolute pseudoscientific tripe like Gene "Woolly Headed
> Numerology" Smith's website www.xenharmony.org have managed to wangle
> moderator powers.
> It's bad enough when you get a group of people pathologically
> compelled to tell lies together on the same website. But when you give
> 'em censorship powers, that's pure poison.
> Moderator powers have given members of the pseudoscience fringe
> like Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith carte blanche to engage in
> the sort of the hysterical name-calling and vicious lies he has just
> slammed this forum with...
> But wait.
> It gets worse.
> On the Alternative Lying List, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
> Smith and his fellow mathturbators can also censor posts from
> anyone who speaks up to use facts and logic to examine their laughably
> false claims and expose their vacuous pseudoscience. Judging by what
> happened when I told the truth about Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
> Smith just now, you can figure the results on the ATL.
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith and Paul "All Attacks, No
> Facts" Erlich and Carl "All Idle Speculations, No Music" Lumma are
> savagely cruel bigots who lie for sport. These members of the lunatic
> fringe regard pseudoscientifc gibberish as an honorable profession.
> Pathetic creatures like Smith and Erlich dote on character
> assassination of the kind that would have made Senator Joseph McCarthy
> cringe -- for them, name-calling is light entertainment. To a man,
> they are practitioners of pseudoscience, to a man they are pervasively
> ignorant of the basic elements of psychoacoustics and musicology. The
> misnamed "moderators" of the ATL produce no music any reasonable
> person would want to hear, and it's simple and easy for anyone with
> elementary music or mathematical knowledge to show that their
> numerology is both musically meaningless and mathematically trivial.
> As a result, practitioners of musically meaningless numerology
> like Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith and his ilk find themselves
> with nothing to do but indulge in hysterical name-calling when faced
> with facts and logic. These people have no discernible musical talent,
> they have no concept whatever of the scientific method (Gene Smith's
> methodology in dealing with tunings amounts of "It works for me" --
> ask yourself if any reputable scientist would accept that as a
> falsifiable test of a scientific hypthesis), these people have
> produced no music theory at all (only laughably foolish medieval
> number mysticism and vapid jargon which is without exception either
> provably false or musically meaningless), and their entire lives seem
> to boil down to shrieking insults at random strangers on the net.
> Can anyone imagine anything more pathetic than the behavior of Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith and Paul "All Attacks, No Facts"
> Erlich?
> -----
> If you want to know why I've abandoned the internet, Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's recent spasm of name-calling
> offers us Exhibit One.
> But Gene's attack of online Tourette's Syndrome is hardly an
> isolated instance. You can find equally vicious personal attacks
> devoid of musical information (just like Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's recent tirade) by Lumma and Erlich and Szanto and
> Smith and Beardsley and Rosati scattered through the ATL archives as
> well as the metamusic forum. The viciousness of Gene Smith's behavior
> since he became moderator has been the subject of considerable
> discussion on metamusic. Smith's threats and bulling and name-calling
> have made his name an epithet excremental and debased, and Smith's
> behavior keeps getting worse. If you don't believe me, read comments
> about Smith's verbal rampages by other ATL members.
> Before abandoning the ATL, one microtonal composer described it as
> a "snakepit." Before fleeing from the ATL, another microtonalist
> called it "a cesspool of verbal attacks devoted to degradation and
> personal destruction in the service of deluded pseudoscience."
> That's why there's a serious debate among the genuine microtonal
> community (which you will N*O*T find on-line) as to whether the ATL
> should more properly be called "The Alternative Wanking List" or "The
> Alternative Lying List."
> Which is the major activity of the ATL?
> Wanking?
> Or lying?
> Lying...
> ...Or wanking?
> Those who describe the ATL as "a group of mathturbators" have
> powerful evidence on their side.
> Given the sheet vacuity and provable lack of musical content of
> crackpot-fringe numerology like the swill at www.xenharmony.org, many
> serious microtonal composers have contended that the ATL should be
> called "The Alternative Wanking List." After all, mathturbators like
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith have plunged so deeply into
> pseudoscience with websites with www.xenharmony.org that they rival
> ufology in sheer ludicrousness. Mathturbators like Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith have churned out such a Himalayan mountain of
> musically meaningless gibberish like "vals" and "wedgies," that by
> comparison with Gene Smith, L. Ron Hubbard looks almost like a
> respectable scientific authority.
> So there's strong evidence in favor of the assertion, by many
> microtonalists, that the ATL should be called "The Alternative Wanking
> List."
> However, other serious microtonal composers have contended (and
> with some merit) that self-deluded numerologists like Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith are not the whole story of the ATL.
> They have pointed out that sadistic personal invective and envenomed
> verbal abuse is the true purpose of the ATL, and that therefore the
> ATL should actually be called "The Alternative Lying List."
> Considering the sheer number of lies told in public on the ATL,
> there's a great deal of evidence to support that line of thinking.
> Most of the moderators of the current ATL lie and lie and lie and lie
> and lie and lie and lie, over and over again. You only have to study
> the archives of the ATL to realize the sheer number of lies told in
> public by Jonathan Szanto, who has lied constantly and lied
> energetically and lied with a vituperation and a sadism that truly
> takes the breath away. Not only has Jonathan Szanto told lie after lie
> after lie in public, he has lied about telling lies -- and then, when
> called on his lies, he lies about having lied about having lied!
> Clearly cases like Jonathan Szanto rise above the ordinary realm of
> everyday lying into the empyrean range of the pathological. And here
> we encounter a strange dreamworld indeed. Life for a pathological liar
> must be incredibly weird. Since every word out of Jonathan Szanto's
> mouth is a lie, can you imagine what it must be like for Szanto?
> Just think of it... Szanto wakes up and probably finds himself
> compelled to say "Well, at least I'm not awake." Then Szanto sees the
> sun is shining and I imagine he has to say, "Darn, it's still night."
> Then Szanto brushes his teeth and probably feels he has to murmur, "I
> guess I don't have time to brush my teeth." Szanto gets dressed and
> in all likelihood mutters to himself, "But I suppose I'll just have to
> avoid getting dressed today."
> And so on.
> Someone who has lied and lied and lied and lied and lied, over and
> over again in public, to the point where essentially everything that
> dribbles out of his mouth is a lie, as Jonathan Szanto has done,
> inhabits a special realm of pathology. The pathological liar, who
> finds finds himself irresistably compelled to say the opposite of the
> truth, is a specimen of human being with whom we seldom come in
> contact...except on the internet.
> Most often, pathological liars don't enjoy much success in life.
> For the obvious reason: these sad twisted creatures quickly reveal
> themselves as people who cannot be trusted, and everyone rapidly
> learns that whatever comes out of their mouths is the opposite of the
> documented facts. So they typically drift to the fringes of society.
> In the real world, reality constantly trips up the pathological liar.
> But on the internet, reality need not intrude.
> As the New Yorker cartoon put it, "On the internet, no one knows
> you're a dog."
> Or a pathological liar.
> People like Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith can quickly and
> easily press a button to make reality disappear. Moderator powers give
> them total censorship. Can you imagine how long I'd last on the
> Alternative Lying List? Smith would've long since banned me and
> censored my posts, since I use facts and logic together with common
> sense to examine claims about microtonality. And facts and logic are
> pure poison to people who practice pseudoscientific numerology, as
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith does -- when faced with common
> sense and a demand for hard evidence that his claims are true, Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith reacts like a vampire in a crucifix
> factory.
> And so, on the Alternative Lying List, the pathological liar
> emerges as the supreme figure. Each of the moderators of the
> Alternative Lying List finds himself compelled to lie and lie and lie
> and lie and lie in public, over and over again, recklessly,
> hysterically, with Joseph McCarthy-style venom and Nixonian
> persistence.
> We see an example of this kind of constant non-stop pathological
> lying in Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's recent explosion of
> invective on this forum.
> Lies are the last resort of people who have run out of facts and
> logic, and have no valid arguments and no evidence to offer. People
> like Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, who have no facts and no
> logic to back up their hysterical invective, naturally find themselves
> reduced to telling lie after lie after lie in public.
> What is the best response to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
> Smith's lies?
> Facts and logic.
> Apply common sense and the test of reality to their claims.
> It requires little effort and less intelligence to dissect Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's lies and reveal them for what they
> are.
> Let's apply common sense and ask "What is the evidence -- how do
> we know Gene `Woolly-Headed Numerology' Smith's claims are true?
> Let us apply facts and logic and use the test of reality on Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's hysterical invective:
>
> "There's a lot of microtonal music out there. Some of it is
> available for free on the web."
>
> What I said was "There's tons of superb microtonal music out
> there, virtually none of it available on the web."
> My statement was and is factually correct. Compare the tiny little
> list of online music resources compiled by Andrew -- then compare it
> with the giant list of microtonal music on CD I compiled for the
> Huyghens-Fokker list (but from which my name has been removed, as
> usual).
> For each of the on-line microtonal compositions listed by Andrew,
> how many microtonal compositions can you find on my microtonal
> discography at the Huyghens-Fokker website?
> When we test Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's claim against
> the facts, do Smith's assertions hold up? Or do the facts support my
> statement that "there's tons of superb microtonal music out there,
> virtually none of it available on the web"?
> Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith lying? What do the facts
> suggest?
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith can quickly and easily prove
> me wrong -- all he has to do is demonstrate with facts that he has a
> minimal knowledge of the vast range of microtonal music on CD, as
> opposed to the microtonal music on the web.
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot prove by citing
> simple facts that he has an adequate knowledge of the range of
> microtonal music on CD, then a reasonable person must conclude that
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is a liar.
> Okay, Gene. Here's your chance to show us all how much you know
> about what microtonal music is available on CD;
> [1] In what tuning is the first track of Bill Wesley's microtonal
> CD "For A Few Tones More"?
> [2] In what tuning is the first track of Jeff Stayton's microtonal
> CD "Industrial Raga"?
> [3] In what tuning is the fifth track of my microtonal CD "Mclaren
> - Microtonal Music Vol. 5"?
> [4] In what tuning is the seventh track of Brink McGoogy's
> microtonal CD "Beyond Eleventeenland"?
> [5] In what tuning is the sixth track of Jonathan Glasier's
> microtonal CD "The Microtonal Music Of Jonathan Glasier"?
> [6] What instruments does Skip LaPlante use on the second track of
> his first microtonal CD?
> [7] What instruments does Skip LaPlante use on the fifth track of
> his second microtonal CD?"
> [9] How long is the third track of my microtonal CD "McLaren -
> Microtonal Music Volume 3"?
> [10] What tuning does Jim Horton use on the track "Simulated Winds
> and Cries" of his microtonal CD of the same name?
>
> Of course Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer any
> of these simple questions, because Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
> Smith has no discernible knowledge of the full range of microtonal
> music available on CD. If he actually had even a minimal knowledge of
> the microtonal music available on CD, he would recognize that his
> statement is flatly false and contradicted by the documented facts.
> And so Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith finds himself compelled
> to lie ("There's a lot of microtonal music out there. Some of it is
> available for free on the web.") rather than admit his appalling
> ignorance.
> Not content with just one lie, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
> Smith needs to tell lie after lie after lie after lie, covering
> himself with shame and turning his name into a lump of sewage.
> Standard operating procedure for the Alternative Lying List... But
> obviously behavior so pathological that it has driven away all the
> competent practicing microtonalists from the Alternative Lying List.
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's next assertion is:
>
> "This does not mean it should be spat upon by the pompous and
> arrogant merely because of that."
>
> Let us examine the hard evidence. What does the evidence tell us?
> What conclusion does a reasonable person draw from the evidence?
> I have thus far constantly proposed "let us examine the hard
> evidence." I have thus far constantly cited documented facts. Why is
> saying "let us examine the hard evidence" pompous and arrogant?
> Provide proof that saying "let us examine the hard evidence" is
> pompous and arrogant, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or stand
> revealed as a liar and a character assassin.
> I have thus far in this post cited common sense as a guideline, as
> opposed to vacuous numerology, number-mysticism, or old wives tales.
> Provide proof that using common sense as a guideline is "pompous and
> arrogant," Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or stand revealed as
> a liar and character assassin.
> When we examine Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's
> assertions, what conclusion does a reasonable person draw?
> Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith accurate and factual when
> he describes my use of common sense as "pompous and arrogant"? Or is
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling yet another lie ("This
> does not mean it should be spat upon by the pompous and arrogant
> merely because of that") to cover up his earlier lie ("There's a lot
> of microtonal music out there. Some of it is available for free on the
> web.")?
> What does a reasonable person conclude from observing Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's behavior?
> Does Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith tell the truth? Does he
> cite documented facts?
> If so, where are they?
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith gives us no websites, no CD
> titles, nothing at all. He cites no facts because he has no facts.
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith tells lie after lie after lie in
> public precisely because he has no facts, no evidence, no knowledge,
> no competence, no expertise in the subject he purports to discuss. And
> this is typical of the Alternative Lying List. Each of the moderators
> reveals himself as arrogant as well as ignorant and incompetent in
> even the most basic elements of microtonality, music theory, music
> history, psychoacoustics, psychomusicology, acoustics and
> ethnomusicology.
> This is why the moderators on the Alternative Lying List find
> themselves compelled to do nothing but lie and lie and lie and lie, as
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has found himself compelled to
> tell lie after lie after lie after lie here.
> As someone who asserts (sans proof) that he has a PhD in
> mathematics, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith ought to recognize
> the inherent mathematical problem with telling lies. Each lie
> typically requires two more lies to support it...and then each of
> those lies demands two more, and so on.
> Little knowledge of math is needed to recognize that such a
> geometric progression soon grows insupportable. First one lie, then 2,
> 4, 8, 16, 32, soon 32768 lies, and on and on... The liar soon finds
> himself with too few hours in the day to tell all the new lies
> required to cover up his old lies and make them seem credible. Such is
> the dilemma in which Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith now finds
> himself, having told lie after lie after lie in public in response to
> my factually accurate and provable correct post.
> Of course we have barely scratched the surface of Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's lies and character assassination.
> Proceeding to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's next
> assertion, we have:
>
> > How many of these people have websites?
> >
> > Zero. They're musicians, not web designers. Whenever you find a
> > website about microtonal music, that's a sure sign you're dealing
> > with somebody who doesn't compose any.
>
> to which Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith responds:
> "What arrogant, ignorant crap.'
>
> Provide hard evidence that the microtonal musicians I cited have put
> up websites showcasing their music, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
> Smith, or stand revealed as a liar and a character assassin.
> Of course Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith finds himself in
> another bind, because he can't provide such hard evidence.
> The hard fact is that Jonathan Glasier has no website devoted
> specifically to his music because Jonathan Glasier is not a computer
> person and doesn't know how to design a website. Likewise, Johnny
> Reinhard has no website specically devoted to Johnny Reinhard's
> microtonal music because once again Reinhard is not a computer person
> and doesn't know how to design a website. Bill Wesley has no website
> devoted specifically to his microtonal music because (as usual) Wesley
> is not a computer person and doesn't know how to design a website.
> Ditto for each of the microtonal composers I mentioned. Skip LaPlante
> is not a computer person, he's a musician; Brink McGoogy is not a
> computer person, he's a musician. And on and on -- in each case, you
> find that if the person is a practicing musician, they usually don't
> know how to design a website and don't have the computer expertise to
> set up a website and encode MP3s and upload 'em. This might be
> trivial to anti-musicians like Carl Lumma and Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith, but designing even the simplest website and
> encoding and ftp'ing even the simplest mp3 is typically beyond the
> skill-set of most practicing musicians. They're not computer people,
> they're musicians.
> So, once again, what does common sense tell us?
> When we examine the facts, we find once again Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's claims fall apart. SOP for the ALternative Lying
> List moderators. When we count up the total number of names on my list
> of microtonal musicians who have designed websites specifically
> devoted to their own music, what do the facts tell us?
> Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling the truth? If so,
> where's the evidence?
> Or does the evidence converge on the conclusion that Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is a liar and character assassin?
> Each time we apply common sense to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
> Smith's claims, what do we discover?
> When Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith calls my application of
> facts and logic to observable reality "arrogant, ignorant crap," is
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling the truth? Or is Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling yet another lie?
> Let us continue with our dissection of Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's post -- how many lies did Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith tell in a single post? So far we've found three
> lies, and that's just in the first two paragraphs. How many lies will
> we discover all told in Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's post?
> Bear in mind the geometric progression required by any liar, and
> you'll understand how doomed the liar is when he ventures
> online...unless he manages to wangle moderator powers, as Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has. Alas, Gene SMith has ventured
> outside the cozy confines of the ALternative Lying List, and he cannot
> censor my posts here. So now he's going to get a Drano high colonic of
> facts and logic, and a brutal education in the penalties for telling
> obvious lies in public.
> ---
> When I pointed out "In the real world, the people who do, don't
> talk...and the people who talk, don't do anything," Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith retorted:
>
> "Ignorant crap."
>
> Provide hard evidence to back up your claim, Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith, or stand revealed as a liar and a character
> assassin.
> I've composed 14 CDs full of audibly microtonal music. Except for
> rare instances like this, I never have anything to do with the
> internet or with cesspools of mindless numerology and hysterical
> name-calling like the Alternative Lying List. Show us the great big
> stack of CDs full of microtonal music Jonathan Szanto has composed --
> where are they? Szanto has churned out many thousands of words on that
> sinkhole of deluded folly, the Alternative Lying List, and it's easy
> to prove it. Look at the recent ATL archives.
> Now show us the evidence of all the posts I've made on the ATL, in,
> oh, say, the last 5 years, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or
> stand revealed as a liar.
> Of course I've made none. Zero. Precisely because savagely cruel
> math bigots like Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, who lie for
> sport, have taken over the ATL.
> Show us the evidence of all the CDs of microtonal music Jonathan
> Szanto has released, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or stand
> revealed as a liar.
> Jeff Stayton has nothing to do with the internet because he has
> described people like you, Gene, and posts like yours, as "the usual
> bullshit and lies from the usual assholes who don't know their ass
> from a hole in the ground about microtonality," so Jeff has made no
> posts on the Alternative Lying List. Jeff Stayton has produced 5 CDs
> of microtonal music, and Jeff Stayton also appears on 27 different
> compilation CDs of microtonal music.
> Carl "All Number Mysticism, No Music" Lumma has the single highest
> post-count on the Alternative Lying List, with millions of words
> authored online.
> Show us the great big stack of 32 microtonal CDs Carl Lumma has
> produced, Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or stand revealed as
> a liar and a character assassin.
> Jonathan Glasier has described posts like yours with the phrase
> "these people are talking out their asses, they don't have a clue
> about microtonality," and he refuses to post on the ATL because people
> like you dominate it with hysterical name-calling and vacuous
> numerology. "These people have made a religion out of fifth-grade
> arithmetic," Glasier has said.
> Jonathan Glasier has released 2 CDs of microtonal music and he
> appears on 17 other compilation CDs of microtonal music.
> Now let us take Paul "All Attacks, No Facts" Erlich. Show us the
> great big stack of microtonal CDs Erlich has released, Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or stand revealed as a liar and a
> character assassin.
> When we use common sense to examine the evidence using facts and
> logic, what does a reasonable person conclude?
> In each case, when we study a moderator of the Alternative Lying
> List, does that person have a large number of CDs of microtonal music?
> Or has that person in fact released no CDs of microtonal music at
> all?
> What do facts and logic suggest?
>
> PAUL ERLICH -- 1 CD of microtonal music, millions of
> words online
>
> JEFF STAYTON -- 32 CDs of microtonal music, no words online.
>
> CARL LUMMA - no CDs of microtonal music, millions of words
> online.
>
> JONATHAN GLASIER -- 19 CDs of microtonal music, no words online.
>
> JONATHAN SZANTO -- no CDs of microtonal music, millions of words
> online.
>
> MCLAREN -- 14 CDs of microtonal and 22 compilation CDs of
> microtonal music playing with other microtonalists, virtually
> no words online
>
> When we apply common sense and examine Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's claims using facts and logic, do we find that Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is stating facts?
> Or is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling yet another lie?
> ----
> Now that Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has racked up 4 lies
> in a row, let's move on to his next provably false claim.
>
> When I pointed out the documented fact that "How many of the
> above-named microtonal musicians have sprayed their music out on the
> web for free? Try `none,' Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith
> retorted:
>
> "And this makes it better?"
>
> Provide hard evidence that I contended the music of the people I
> cited was "better" than the music of the arrogant incompetent ignorami
> who abuse and degrade the Alternative Lying List as its moderators,
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or stand revealed as a liar and
> character assassin.
> Of course Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith can't provide such
> evidence, since I never said that. Once again, facts a logic lead us
> to the conclusion that Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is
> telling yet another lie.
> We begin to sense a pattern here, do we not?
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has lied and lied and lied
> and lied in his recent post, while I have stated documented facts.
> When we examine Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's claims
> against the documented facts, each of his claims falls apart.
> Meanwhile, when we examine my statements against the documented facts,
> my statements typically hold up.
> What does a reasonable person conclude about Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith? Is he a liar who finds himself compelled to tell
> lie after lie after lie because he has no grasp of the facts and no
> evidence to support his hysterical personal attacks?
> Or is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith making factually
> correct statements -- if so, why is his post totally devoid of facts?
> What does common sense suggest?
> Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith a liar and a character
> assassin? Is he telling non-stop lies and using character
> assassination because he has no facts and no evidence and no valid
> arguments, and lies and name-calling are his last resort?
> What conclusion does a reasonable person arrive at from studying
> the evidence?
> Let us continue using common sense to examine Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's claims:
> When I remarked "Does it occur to you that it might cost money to
> host a website and let people download music?" Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith responded by claiming:
>
> "Does it occur to you that the amount of money involved is small
> potatoes?"
>
> Let us use facts and logic to examine Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's claim -- is it accurate?
> What do the facts say?
>
> Most web hosting service let us user put up X number of megs and
> use Y number of gigs of monthly bandwidth for data transfer. An
> examination of the fine print of the service plans of these web
> hosting services reveals that the real cost comes from exceeding data
> transfer charges.
> A typical text-only website seldom has to worry about exceeding
> the typical 5 gigs per month of data transfer; however, someone
> offering data-intensive downloads, like mp3s, soon runs into the
> bandwidth limit and starts paying 5 cents per meg overage.
> Since Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith claims to be a
> mathematician, let's do some elementary arithmetic -- what kind of
> bandwidth fees does offering mp3s on your website potentially cost?
> 5 cents per meg for transfers over 5 gigs per months sounds good,
> until your realize that a typical mp3 may run 2 to 8 megs. Let's
> assume only 4 megabytes per mp3 and a reasonable number of mp3s of
> your microtonal music on your website...say, 10. That's on the low
> end, but it's still minimally adequate if you have an reasonable
> number of microtonal CDs at all. I've put out 14 CDs of microtonal
> music on CD, so 30 mp3 probably wouldn't be adequate -- but my case is
> exceptional. For folks like Jeff Scott, who has put out 2 CDs of
> microtonal music, 10 mp3s is probably more than adequate. Now let's
> assume typical website traffic of 200 visitors per day. That's low,
> but probably typical for something as esoteric as microtonal music.
> Since the mp3s are free, let's further guesstimate that 1/3 of the
> visitors will download 'em since they figure (as always), "Hey, free
> stuff! Why not grab it?"
> [(6000 visitors per month times 10 mp3s times 4 megs per mp3 times
> 33%) - 5 gigabytes] * 5 cents/megabyte = how much per month?
>
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith claims (sans proof) to have a
> doctorate in mathematics but apparently he can't manage to do simple
> arithmetic. Let's do it for him: that's 75 gigabytes of data transfer
> per month. Now multiply by 50 dollars (5 cents per meg for going over
> the 5 gig per month data transfer limit = 5000 cents per gigabyte, or
> 50 dollars per gig) to get $3750 per month in data transfer surcharge
> fees.
> What does common sense suggest when we compare Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's claim "Does it occur to you that the amount of
> money involved is small potatoes?" against the facts?
> Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's claim accurate?
> Or is his assertion flatly contradicted by the facts, as usual?
> Does a reasonable person conclude that the PhD in mathematics Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith can't do simple multiplcation and
> reproduce the elementary calculation above? Or does a reasonable
> person conclude that Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is telling
> yet another lie to cover up his appalling ignorance?
> Toward what conclusion does common sense impel us?
> Moving on to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's next provably
> false assertion, we arrive at:
>
> "That's right, Carl Lumma hasn't produced a CD of microtonal music.
> But he's spewed out millions of words," to which Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith responded:
>
> "At least that means he has done something."
>
> This is not strictly speaking a lie -- a substantial change of pace
> for Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, and genuinely startling
> given his rabid mad-dog behavior on the Alternative Lying List. As the
> Senator Joseph McCarthy of microtonality, Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith takes us by surprise when something other than a lie
> or a character assassination erupts from his mouth.
> And yet, instead of being an outright lie, this is a classic
> example of the logical error known as the non sequitur objection.
> That's a surprise. We expect lies and not bad logic from Gene Smith,
> the Senator Joseph McCarthy of microtonality.
> Let us dissect Gene Smith's obvious logic error to get a sense of
> its laughable foolishness. In debates, a person who has run out of
> facts and logic and cannot offer any valid arguments or any evidence
> in favor of his position will often resort to the "non-sequitur
> objection." In this case, the non-sequitur objection is "At least
> that means he has done something."
> To see the utter vacuity of Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's
> garbled logic and scrambled reasoning here, apply Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's non-sequitur objection to any other example of
> pro-and-con debate:
> For instance, apply Gene's vacuous retort to the lament "It was
> terrible that John Wilkes Booth shot President Lincoln."
> To which Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith retorts:
> "At least that means he has done something"
>
> Does Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's retort make sense? Or
> is it the kind of brain-damaged gibberish even a 7-year-old child
> would laugh at?
> We can test this hypothesis, since my neighbors have a 7-year-old
> child who currently studied music and plays hopscotch in her driveway.
> I sometimes see her on weekends when I get the mail.
> So I ran Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's non-sequitur
> objection past her in a few examples to get her reaction:
>
> "Suppose I complain that WW I killed a lot of people, and someone
> objects `At least that means they have done something,' -- does that
> make sense?"
>
> The neighbor's 7-year-old girl began giggling uncontrollably.
>
> I tried another example on her:
>
> "Suppose I say that the bacteria that caused Black Death were
> deadly, and someone else responds `At least that means they have done
> something,' -- what do you think of that?"
>
> At this point the neighbor's 7-year-old daughter was laughing out
> loud. When she stopped laughing, she said, "That's silly. Don't be a
> dumb-head."
>
> What does common sense suggest when Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's arguments on the internet cause a 7-year-old child
> to giggle uncontrollably?
> Moving on from garbled reasoning and scrambled logic by alleged
> PhD Gene Ward Smith back to his outright lies, we encounter Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's next assertion:
>
> When I pointed out:
> "Or you could always listen to that magnificent CD of microtonal
> music by Jonathan Szanto available here:
>
> "Whoops, Jonathan Szanto hasn't released any CDs of microtonal
> music either."
>
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith retorted:
>
> "Gee, and I thought we were supposed to support "real musicians".
> Jon doesn't count?"
>
> Exactly. Jonathan Szanto doesn't count as a microtonal musician
> because he does not compose microtonal music and he does not perform
> microtonal music.
> If you wish to disprove this statement of documented fact, Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, provide hard evidence showing that
> Jonathan Szanto composes or performs microtonal music, or stand
> revealed as a liar and a character assassin.
> If Jonathan Szanto performs so much microtonal music, where are the
> program notes for his performances?
> There aren't any.
> Szanto doesn't perform microtonal music.
> If Jonathan Szanto has composed or performed so much microtonal
> music, where are the great big stacks of CDs of his performances
> and/or compositions?
> There aren't any.
> Jonathan Szanto does not compose microtonal music. Jonathan Szanto
> does not perform microtonal music. The only connection Jonathan Szanto
> has with microtonal music is that he hurls vicious invective at people
> who do compose microtonal music.
> Accordingly, Jonathan Szanto has less connection with microtonal
> music than a cat has with calculus. The only real surprise is that
> Szanto ever opens his mouth about microtonality, since he is so
> obviously totally unqualified to say even word one about
> microtonality. Yes, Szanto supposedly spent 2 years with Partch --
> about that claim, Jonathan Glasier has remarked, "Szanto arrived late,
> and his time with Partch was short." And since Szanto has has no
> connection whatever with composing or performing any microtonal music
> since 1987, Szanto's qualifications for saying anything about
> microtonality are nil.
> Szanto's group "Making Microtonal Music" should be called
> "Mutilating Microtonal Music." It stands as a sinister monument to the
> power of character assassination by an ignoramus pervasively
> unfamiliar with even the most basic elements of microtonality, as
> Szanto is, and apparently devoted to verbally brutalizing and
> discouraging anyone who dares compose microtonal music.
> What does common sense suggest when we subject Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's claims to the test of facts and logic?
> If Jonathan Szanto is so deeply involved composing and performing
> microtonal music, where is the evidence of it?
> If Jonathan Szanto is a microtonal musician, show us the evidence
> -- where is it? Show it to us. Show us the great big stack of CDs of
> microtonal music Szanto has performed.
> Where are they?
> Nowhere. They don't exist.
> Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling the truth when he
> implies that Jonathan Szanto is a microtonal musician? Or is he
> telling yet another foolishly obvious lie?
> Toward what conclusion do facts and logic impel us when we examine
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's statements? Is Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling the truth? Or is he once
> again telling lies and using character assassination to cover up his
> gross ignorance?
> Moving on to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's next
> statement, we have
>
> "Paul, Jon and Joe have all composed microtonal music. What,
> exactly, is your claim to fame?"
>
> Let us use facts and logic, as always, to test Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's retort.
> I compiled the bibliogragphy at the Huyghens/Fokker website. This
> is actually only a small part of my scholarship. As it happens, this
> bibliography is only the tail end of my article "A Brief History Of
> Microtnoality In the 20th Century," which has been described as "THE
> major piece of scholarship about the history of microtonality." Larger
> and more comprehensive than any other scholarly resource documenting
> microtonality in the 20th century, "A Brief History of Microtonality
> Int he 20th Century" clicks in at well over 60,000 words and compares
> well with a typical PhD thesis. Indeed, more than one academic has
> remarked, "If I ever get into a position to do it, you deserve a PhD
> on the basis of that scholarship alone."
> It stands to reason that Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is
> unfamiliar with such major scholarship about microtonality, since each
> of Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's statements reveal not only
> his ignorance of microtonality and his incompetence as a scholar, but
> his overweening arrogance as well.
> Of course "A Brief History Of Microtonality" is only a small part
> of my scholarly output. I've translated part of Laurent Fichet's 1996
> "Scientific Theories of Music In the 19th and 20th Centuries" as well
> as other major scholarship including the article "Microtonality and
> Psychoacoustics" and "A Survey Of Microtonality In America."
> Naturally Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is not familiar
> with these scholarly works either.
> What does a reasonable person conclude?
> I've also created an "introduction to Microtonality" CD that has
> been used int he only academic courses taught in the United States on
> microtonality.
> Faced with this evidence, what does a reasonable person conclude?
> Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith knowledgeable about the
> state of the art in microtonal scholarship? Or is he too ignorant to
> realize my major contributions, to incompetent as a researcher to
> bother to look up this widely-available information, and too arrogant
> to realize how ignorant and incompetent he is?
> What does common sense suggest?
> Moving on from my scholarship and pedagogy to my music, I have
> produced 14 CDs of my own microtonal music and my music appears on 22
> different compilation CDs created with other microtonal musicians.
> I have composed more microtonal music in more tunings (JI, ET and
> NJ NET) than other human being alive or dead, and enough people have
> described my microtonal music as "the best microtonal music" they've
> heard that this judgment cannot be dismissed entirely out of hand.
> Here are some of the comments virtuoso performers and scholars and
> professional musicians have made about my CDs of microtonal music:
>
> "I listened to the music with total delight." -- Allen Strange,
> former president of the Computer Music Association
>
> "Some of the best microtonal music I've heard." -- Kris Peck
>
> "Perfect music, perfectly recorded." -- Gennadiy Kurgin, dean of
> the Ukraine school of Music and the Arts
>
> "Mclaren is the only person who seems to compose serious microtonal
> music -- the people on the ATL are just noodling around and I'm tired
> of it." -- John H. Chalmers, editor of the microtonal journal
> "Xenharmonikon."
>
> "I love your music." -- Warren Burt, instructor at the University
> of Urbana at Champaign in a course on microtonality
>
> "These are masterful compositions." -- M. Joel Mandelbaum, emeritus
> professor, Queens College
>
> "The scope of your musical and technical imagination is amazing --
> I really feel like I've gone through the mirror into a parallel
> universe when I listen -- a hyperchromatic landscape that makes most
> other musics pale in comparison." -- virtuoso microtonal guitarist
> John Schneider
>
> If this sounds like boasting...no, just the facts.
> But you did ask.
> By the way...how many virtuoso musicians or professional musicians
> have described _your_ music as "the best microtonal music they've
> ever heard," Gene?
> Let me guess:
> None.
> We _do_ have a description of Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
> Smith's music courtesy of Jonathan Szanto, however. Smith apparently
> admires Szanto, so we should pay attention when Szanto discusses
> Smith's music. Szanto recentrly described Gene Smith's music as a root
> canal without anaesthesia. See recent posts on Making Microtonal
> Music for details.
> Moving on to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's next
> assertion, we arrived at:
>
> "Gene Ward Smith is also a better composer than you will ever be,
> in his obviously far from humble opinion. That you are a microtonal
> hack does not make you special."
>
> Rather than dispute about what is obviously an unfalsifiable
> personal opinion, we may quickly and easily reduce Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith's claim from a conveniently unfalsifiable belief to
> a question of knowledge.
> Instead of asking whether I am a good or bad composer, let us ask --
> what si the hard evidence that Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith
> knows anything at all about my music?
> Logic tells us that if Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith does
> not know anything about my music and has never heard my music, then he
> must by definition be lying when he asserts that "Gene Ward Smith is
> also a better composer than you will ever be."
> Of course, as always we can apply facts and logic to test Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's claim against observable reality.
> On my CD of microtonal music "McLaren - Microtonal Music Volume 1,"
> what is the instrumentation of track 5?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then the facts suggest that he has never even heard any of
> my 14 CDs of microtonal music and as a consequence Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith is telling yet another lie, since he cannot possibly
> presume to make statements about a composer whose music he has never
> heard.
> On my CD of microtonal music "McLaren - Microtonal Music Volume 2,"
> how many tracks are there?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "McLaren - Microtonal Music Volume 3,"
> what musical form is employed in the second movement of the 15 tone
> equal piano concerto?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "McLaren - Microtonal Music Volume 4,"
> how many different just intonation compositions appear?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "McLaren - Microtonal Music Volume 5,"
> what are the specific non-just non-equal-tempered tunings used?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "McLaren - Microtonal Music Volume 6,"
> how many tracks are there?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD "240 Piano Pieces - Volume 1," what are the equal tempered
> tunings used?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "240 Piano Pieces - Volume 2," how
> many tracks are there?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "240 Piano Pieces - Volume 3," what
> musical form does track 9 use?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "240 Piano Pieces - Volume 4," what
> musical form does track 7 use?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "240 Piano Pieces - Volume 5," what is
> the relationship between the last composition on track 20 and the
> first composition on track 21?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "144 Of the World's Most Xenharmonic
> Melodies," which instrumentation is used by the fifth track?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "Beyond All Limits - Volume 1," which
> instrumentation is used on track 11?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot answer this
> question, then once again the facts show that he is lying.
> On my CD of microtonal music "Beyond All Limits - Volume 2," what
> JI limit is used on track 19?
> When we examine Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's claims
> against the evidence, what does a reasonable person conclude?
> Is he knowledgeable about the subjects he purports to discuss? Or
> he provably ignorant?
> Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith a competent scholar? Or is
> he forced to tell lies and use character assassination because of his
> crass incompetence as a scholar?
> Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith a person who tells the
> truth? Or does he tell lie after lie after lie after lie online?
> What does common sense inform us about a person who constantly tell
> s lies? How is such a person common described?
> lastly, we come to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's final
> baseless assertions:
>
> "*Everything* I write is microtonal, you baboon."
>
> To paraphrase the Borg of Star Trek fame, "Insults are irrelevant."
> Name-calling of the kind Gene Smith indulges in here ("you baboon")is
> typically the last resort of someone who has run out of facts and
> logic and has nothing but lies and invective left in a vain attempt to
> distract us from the facts.
> Instead of being distracted, let us center in on the facts. Where
> is the hard evidence that any of the meantone tunings Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has wasted his life numerologizing
> about on the Alternative Lying List can be objectively and verifiably
> distinguished from a typical piano in 12 equal under objective blind
> listening tests?
> We need not respond to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's
> hysterical name-calling here other than to point out the obvious
> logical conclusion that if under objective listening tests Smith's
> meantone tunings cannot be reliably distinguished from the tuning ona
> typical piano tuned in 12 equal, then by definition worthless
> numerolgoical swill like Smith's various 12-equal meantone tunings
> cannot be called "microtonal."
> In order to qualify as "microtonal," clearly a tuning must be
> audibly distinguishable from 12. If it's not, then it's not
> microtonal.
> Where is the hard evidence from objective blind listening tests
> proving that listeners can reliably hear a difference between Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's various numerological concoctions
> and a typical piano in 12 equal?
> There are none.
> There is no evidence that Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has
> ever conducted any objective blind listening tests capable of
> falsifying the hypothesis that his numerological meantone tunings are
> audibly different from 12 equal.
> What does a reasonsable person conclude from an examination of Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's output?
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith uses numbers to generate
> tunings but he never bothers to test whether these tunings can be
> audibly differentiated from 12 equal.
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith uses the trappings of science
> -- namely, equations, MAPLE, and lists of numbers -- but Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith systematically avoids and ignores the
> actual scientific method -- namely, objective blind listening
> experiments capable of falsifying an hypothesis.
> When a person like Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith uses the
> outward trappings of science but ignores and flagrantly traduces
> against the scientific method, is this an example of valid science?
> Or is it pseudo-science?
> When we apply facts and logic to Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology"
> Smith's cumulative output on the Alternative Lying List, do we
> discover that Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith is a serious
> researcher...or a deluded and muddle-headed pseudoscientists on the
> level of the typical ufologist or astrologer?
> When we examine www.xenharmony.org, do we find more scientific
> content than in astrology? Or less?
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's output on the web has
> less scientific content than astrology, what does that tell us about
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's standing as a scholar and as a
> researcher?
> Lastly, let us consider Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith's
> final assertion:
>
> "What an imbecile."
>
> Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary levels of proof.
> Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has made the claim that I am
> mentally defective. That qualifies as an extraordinary claim.
> Provide hard evidence that I am mentally defective, Gene
> "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith, or stand revealed as a liar and a
> character assassin.
> Hard evidence in this case, because of the extraordinary nature of
> the claim, must rise to the same extraordinary level. Therefore we
> will require Gene SMith to upload notarized copies of at least 3
> (three) IQ tests showing that I am mentally defective (sub-70 IQ)
> along with at least 1 notarized copy of an official court document
> certifying me as mentally defective in a court proceeding. If such
> court documents exist, they should be easy to find.
> If Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith cannot provide the hard
> evidence to back up his claim, what does a reasonable person conclude?
> Is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith telling the truth?
> Or is Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith a person who hurls
> frantic lies and hysterical name-calling at anyone who uses facts and
> logic to examine his laughably false claims about microtonality?
>
> EXIT QUESTION:
> What does a reasonable person conclude upon learning that a person
> pathologically addicted to telling lies and using character
> assassination online, as Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has
> proven himself to be, is (savage joke of a word) "moderator" of an
> online group on microtonality?
> What do facts and logic tell us about a person who has demonstrated
> such appalling ignorance and such shocking incompetence and such
> startling arrogance as Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith has, when
> we learn that this rabid reincarnation of Senator Joseph McCarthy
> actually _controls_ an online group allegedly devoted to discussing
> microtonality?
> Isn't that like putting John Wayne Gacy in charge of an online
> group about child care?
> Putting Gene "Woolly-Headed Numerology" Smith in control of an
> online microtonal discussion group is like putting Ted Bundy in
> control of a group devoted to discussing dating young girls, isn't it?
> Does this explain why all the competent knowledgeable microtonal
> musicians have abandoned the Alternative Lying List as a hopeless
> sinkhole of deluded folly exhibiting less scientific content than
> Dianetics and offering less factually accurate information about
> microtonal music than the Sears Catalog?
> Does this explain why microtonal composer after microtonal composer
> has described the ATL and its membership (like Gene "Woolly-Headed
> Numerology" Smith) as "a bunch of kooks screaming lies" and "crackpots
> spouting gibberish and wacked-out pseudoscience"?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>