--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@> wrote:
>
> > ... Once more - this scale is NOT correct. Honestly, all you have to
> > do is read the webpage from start to finish to find out exactly what
> > Werckmeister said. I have no idea why people are unwilling to do this.
>
> Give the scale or don't give it, but please don't blame other people
> for your failures.


MY failures? What the hell do you mean by that?

The very first table in the webpage gives the scale with complete
clarity; for an unfathomable reason, some people ignored it. I made
ONE easily identifiable typo in a subsequent table: 496:496 instead of
496:495. The correct ratio could be deduced using the table of
monochord numbers and some elementary arithmetic. For some reason some
people managed to screw that up and get a nonsensical ratio of
4-figure integers instead. I'm not responsible for that.

How about we talk about your failures too? And everyone else's
failures? What a NICE discussion that would make.

~~~T~~~