ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW
Please do not add any new discussion to this archive page.
All new discussion should go on Talk:Just intonation.
I created a new article by going back to an older version of this one, because I don't like this article (a lot of useless blah blah blah so far as I can see) but other people do. So let's have two articles!
- genewardsmith January 29, 2012, 03:11:40 AM UTC-0800
Thank you. I was trying to clean up the old one, but I was afraid people would get mad if I removed their sentences entirely. We definitely need something concise and to the point.
- Sarzadoce January 29, 2012, 02:42:21 PM UTC-0800
omission of JI propaganda statement.
It does not serve the unbiased nature to have such a thing included.
One could as easily say that those that temper become troubled by those who point out that temperments can be appox. by JI.
- kraiggrady November 01, 2010, 04:31:27 AM UTC-0700
Yes Kraig, I agree with your removing that section. I'm less interested in th "biased/unbiased" argument than simply th argument that "them's fightin' words." Phrases in particular: "some people", "pig-headed", "quasi-religious", etc. I don't want to welcome that kind of verbal violence in this community.
If somebody wants to write an opinionated article on another page, add a link to it on th JI page, and sign their name to it, that would be different, imho.
Not that there are any policies in place....
- Andrew_Heathwaite November 01, 2010, 12:05:15 PM UTC-0700
We can't jump from an "a,b,c" definition to neologism-laden filligreed stuff in the same paragraph. This is tantamount to simply writing "go away, sane folk!"
- lobawad July 04, 2011, 02:04:28 AM UTC-0700