What about describing it as "falseness"?  As opposed to the truest tone which should be there, <span class="gmail_quote"></span>free from falseness.<br><br>JF<br><br><font style="color: rgb(204, 204, 204);" size="1"> Whoever would know the truth must know Jesus Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life.</font><br style="color: rgb(204, 204, 204);"><br><br> <div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/20/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">PAULREVENKOJONES </b> <<a href="mailto:paulrevenkojones@aol.com">paulrevenkojones@aol.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div style="font-size: x-small; color: black; font-family: Arial; background-color: transparent;"> <div>Alan, that's a hoot! I love "rotten" strings. You're right about other lexicons. I'll be interested to hear. But don't you think maybe it's cart before horse to want a word before we know the phenomenon it's trying to denote? That might just leave us in the same stew. My notion of "real" vs "false" is simply so that we aim our words a bit better at the physical nature of the phenomenon instead of being diverted from it. The beat really is genuine. How many people have dressed capos incorrectly because it's called a V-bar? It's actually an <em>italic U</em> bar :-). But that's another topic.</div> <div> </div> <div><strong>IF YOU WANT TO OPINE MY TRUTHINESS, STOP HAVING THE WANTS!!</strong></div> <div> </div> <div>Paul</div><div><span class="e" id="q_110de7a147d49325_1"> <div> </div> <div> </div></span></div></div></blockquote></div><br>