<HTML>In a message dated 9/14/02 6:01:38 AM Central Daylight Time, A440A@aol.com writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">:      The cent figures of the ebvt came from the author's website.  They were posted as a technical description of his creation and were listed to the tenth of a cent(though,in truth, the E-G# was listed as 19.46, which is even a worse imbalance).  They describe an atypical temperament and as soon as attention was called to this, a variety of "fudges"  were used in an attempt to lessen these differences, while a simultaneous personal assault was mounted.      </BLOCKQUOTE> I did not come up with those figures, the maker of the graph did.  As I have said before, I like the graph, most of it is correct and so it stays as it is until I have the chance to figure out what the numbers really should be. I gave you the chance to recant your obvious attempt to discredit my work and I said I would leave the list if you did, yet you persist in trying to do so.  You've always done this.  Go ahead to the Ethics Committee and try to tell them that you are being harmed.  You'll find out first that you made the wrong phone call. The EBVT has never substantially changed, never.  There has always been the "according to personal taste" factor (which you finally, at last mentioned in a recent post) available.  The exact chosen speed of the initial 3rd affects the layout of the rest of the temperament.  It is there as a *range* of option which does not exist in ET , cannot exist and thus is not available.  How can a variety of interval sizes ever constitute equality? And therein lies one of the core issues: having it both ways and all ways.  It is "equal" if I say it is and mean it to be,  just don't bug be with trivial data.  I've tried to show the fallacy of this kind of thinking and the way out of it.  You offer nothing but numbers copied out of a book. And yes, you did *lie* when you wrote that post and you knew you were misrepresenting what I do.  I have never once tuned the EBVT so that E-G# was 19.46 and F#-A# 13.7.  That, in fact would be Reverse Well.  I never once claimed the EBVT to be "authentic" to anyone but myself.  No, there is no other Victorian era temperament which has 4 pure 5ths and specified sets of equal beating 3rds. So, in order to satisfy you, I am supposed to *ruin* it and do what you do?  Never.  When you get off your high horse about this, I will.  Until then, you are as I have said, a liar who has spewed out your own nonsense to try to discredit what I do. Why don't you do a little experimenting and come up with your own idea about how to make the best compromise in tuning possible?  Do it for 10 years, work it, perfect it, get a website and publish it, teach it in a class at the Convention.  Until you do, all you're doing is copying numbers out of books and off lists, telling everyone else they should do the same.  When the ET only crowd breathes down your neck, you Uncle Tom your way out of it. Lastly, you did use the word "JUNK", spelled that way, in all caps on Pianotech.  You acknowledged that the FAC program may not quite work if "you tune JUNK".  You didn't say which pianos you meant but did imply that any piano with scaling compromises or irregularities would fall into this category.  By using the word "JUNK" alone, you sullied the entire profession.  Nothing I have ever written anywhere, any time is as bad as using that one word the way you used it. You make it seem OK for newer techs to have the same attitude about the pianos they work on every day.  This is JUNK, Ed Foote used that word.  I'll just dial in some numbers and tune this JUNK with a rotten attitude about the whole thing until maybe I will get to tune a real piano someday.  The attitude spreads to the other aspects of a technician's work, maintenance, regulation, voicing, all are reduced to the lowest common denominator because Ed Foote (and others like Antares) called them JUNK.  The same goes for the infamous "PSO". So now, I throw it back in your face.  I am compiling lists of interval sizes while tuning what you call "JUNK" to show that what you say and have always said have never had any foundation.  You don't have enough experience to even know how to interpret lists of cents deviations and interval sizes because you haven't done that kind of work yet.  You've only looked in books. You go ahead and tune the way you usually do, then take the enormous amount of time it takes to measure all of the results by direct interval and see for yourself that all of the charts you make will vary from one to the other.  Then look at what you just said in your last post, hold those charts up to a mirror and look at your self, the biggest, lying, self promoting hypocrite in the business. Until you've done that, you have no basis whatsoever in even commenting on what I do and you remain in the position of having spewed out in an angry diatribe, the kind which I am always accused of perpetrating, defamtion and misrepresentation.  You of all people should realize by now that tuning is an art which can be defined numerically only to a certain point.  Once constrained to rigid sets of figures, it becomes unnecessarily compromised.  Your entire approach is elementary and overly simplistic.  You still have a lot to learn.  It is amazing to me how quickly you jumped from the Gosh, Golly, Gee beginner to Guru.  Once again, when you get off your high horse and back down, so will I. "Sideways Well":  the pit Ed Foote dug for himself to wallow in the day he knowingly published false data for the EBVT on Pianotech. Bill Bremmer RPT Madison, Wisconsin <A HREF="http://www.billbremmer.com/">Click here: -=w w w . b i l l b r e m m e r . c o m =-</A> </HTML>