The CHAS system is very simple. As Bill has already pretty much established, it is almost identical to ET within his own mindless octaves paradigm. What Alfredo has done has encased it in a bit of esoteric mathematics and a bit of numerology which is valid but a little odd. However, in his analysis he found an important fact about the beat rates of the 4ths and 5ths, and has developed a way to incorporate this into his tuning. I do think the approach is very difficult, and on this forum we've not seen a satisfactory scheme in order to tune it. I've tried before from instructions posted in another thread, to great success. It took me four hours, but the resultant tuning was amazing.

(And had the damn cheek to not have English as his native language, or American as his native culture, and to not know how to use forums properly)

These attempts at character assassination are really petty. It's very difficult to engage with alfredo but that doesn't mean his ideas aren't valid.

To be clear: I am not going for character assassination, I just believe there is nothing to this Chas "theory".

I am not surprised if you spend 4 hours on a tuning the result will be good.

Kees

Hi.

Ian, here you find the review "QUADERNI DI RICERCA IN DIDATTICA" of G.R.I.M. N.19- PALERMO 2009

Chas research report is n. 5:

http://math.unipa.it/~grim/quaderno19.htm

There you read: "Every article published on the review is submitted referee from at least two members of editorial board." You'll also find the Editorial Board list of members.

Phil,

thank you for your words. Perhaps I don't know how to use forums properly* and for sure English is not my native language. Nevertheless the picture I'm getting is quite well defined and it is not difficult for me to recognize serious contributors.

I was asked for a tuning sequence and that was provided. Also Chas publication was called into question and I provided some links. Someone found that Chas maths had symbols that they could not understand, so I provided a simplified version. The same happened with Chas tuning recordings.

I agree, now it is petty and I cannot afford to go in circles, I cannot discuss absurdities and nonsense over and over again. Now I should prove that I exist... In any case, the validity of Chas materials and Chas threads contents is submitted to PW readers and colleagues.

(*):

#1792121 - November 19, 2011 07:33 PM
Re: CHAS PREPARATORY TUNING [Re: alfredo capurso]

DoelKees:

..."What I find disturbing is the refusal by Alfredo to provide a clear tuning sequence, despite being told by several of the most distinguished piano technicians in the USA and Europe, why the sequence he posted is too vague.

From this I conclude (no personal insult intended) that the whole Chas tuning is an illusion. There is no such thing. Alfredo just tunes ET like the best but that's all it is.

Added to this deception is the "mathematical" paper, which in my expert opinion as mathematician and tuning theory expert is what Wolfgang Pauli coined as "not even wrong". I call it crackpottery. You can find a forum on "not even wrong".

Reason I'm restating this and undoubtedly upsetting Alfredo again is that novice and aspiring tuners seem somehow drawn to this Chas stuff, and naively believe it must be better than the "conventional ET" that is usually taught (wow, so many equations!) and are thus led astray.

Hence I'd like clearly stated why Chas is not taken seriously by many (if not all) experts in the area.

Alfredo, you will get an apology from me if you can prove me wrong."...

Regards, a.c.

Chas tuning mp3 - live recording on Fazioli
http://myfreefilehosting.com/f/07c3ca3905_6.32MB

CHAS Tuning mp3 - Amatorial recording on a Steinway S (5’ 1”, 155 cm)
http://www.box.net/shared/od0d7506cv

C.HA.S. The Harmonic Temperament, Chopin - Rondo in E-flat major, Op.16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWlTHnnN4cc

CHAS THEORY - RESEARCH REPORT BY G.R.I.M. - Department of Mathematics, University of Palermo - 2009, Italy:
http://math.unipa.it/~grim/Quaderno19_Capurso_09_engl.pdf

Article by Professor Nicola Chiriano - published by P.RI.ST.EM (Progetto Ricerche Storiche E Metodologiche) - University "Bocconi" - Milano, 2010 - (Italian):
http://matematica.unibocconi.it/articoli/relazioni-armoniche-un-pianoforte

Alfredo

It was Kees who questioned whether or how your paper had been reviewed.

What concerns me about the mathematics is the definition and meaning of delta in your algorithm. As I said in a previous post, I am inclined to think the scale factor should be allowed to emanate from inharmonicity rather than equal deviations in frequency from just intonation.

My suggestion is to rewrite your algorithm like this:

(3 − Δ3)^(1/19) = (4 + Δ4)^(1/ 24)

and substitute (3 − Δ3) for (3 - Δ) and (4 + Δ4) for (4 + Δ) in sections 3.4 and 3.5.

Δ3 = Δ4 would be the special case you describe (S=1) but there would be no need for any S variable. Another special case could be 4*Δ3 = 3*Δ4.

Hi Ian.

#1796814 - 11/27/11 04:46 PM
Re: CIRCULAR HARMONIC SYSTEM - CHAS [Re: DoelKees]

Withindale:

"Come on Kees.

Theory and practice have become badly entangled in this thread."...

Really? Well, one of the original attempts here is to keep theory and practice separate.

..."You and I both know the model will not stand up to rigorous mathematical scrutiny."...

It will be relevant to exactly understand what you meant.

..."That should not detract from Alfredo's tuning methodology or indeed from striving to translate his experience into a model."...

We would not be here if the "striving" you mention hadn't already come to an end.

..."From what I read in some of his posts, Isaac Oleg (Kamin) took Alfredo's approach seriously. When it came to comparing, so to speak, one fine wine with another, Isaac preferred French to Sicilian. Those posts may have preceded Alfredo's visit that Dan mentioned."...

Perhaps you could read about Isaac's comments and preferences also at the Canadian Association of Piano Technicians Community Forum and here:

Accord tempéré en équation - CHAS
http://www.pianomajeur.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6210

..."I also wonder whether some temperaments, such as those Alfredo is aiming for, can have too much consonance, if that is the right way to describe how they sound, or whatever it was that led Isaac Oleg to say something was lacking."...

Perhaps you can explain "too much consonance" and also report what Isaac said that was lacking.

More recently you wrote:

..."What concerns me about the mathematics is the definition and meaning of delta in your algorithm. As I said in a previous post, I am inclined to think the scale factor should be allowed to emanate from inharmonicity rather than equal deviations in frequency from just intonation."...

Your premise needs to be corrected: Chas scale factor does not emanate from equal deviations in frequency; the scale factor emanates from the "s" variable.

You wrote:..."Δ3 = Δ4 would be the special case you describe (S=1) but there would be no need for any S variable. Another special case could be 4*Δ3 = 3*Δ4."...

As you say, (s = 1) is a special case. How would you cope with infinite special cases?

In section (3.3) you can read: "Equal temperament’s geometric progression, when clear of unjustified premises, suggested infinite exponential curves related to oscillations of partial values, and identifiable through a second variable, expressing an “elastic” potential and enabling the system to evolve."

As I've mentioned, when we get to practice, "equal deviations in frequency from just intonation" as a rigid solution would not work, in that "tuning" is like drawing on a sheet of paper that is constantly shifting. For this reason we must be able an ready to tune different curves. This is what "s" represents.

Regards, a.c.

Hi Alfredo



This explains the difference between theory and practice very clearly. Practice does not depend on the way theory is written down on paper or whether it is written down at all.

I wrote from memory and I have not been able to find the post I had in mind. Perhaps it was not from Kamin as I thought. I am happy to add him to list of experienced tuners, like Phil, who really like the Chas tuning method.

Thank you for the links; unfortunately some of the sound samples they contain are no longer available.

When you tune an equal temperament as perfectly as you can, you are eliminating as many imperfections as possible. I used the word consonance to describe the results. Maybe it was not a good word to use. The more successful you are, the more you will emphasize any differences from the colour and character of other temperaments people hear and like. There is nothing you can do about this; it's their preference.

The equation I suggested is always true when the scale or stretch factor is constant across the octaves of interest. It could also be called s.

(3 − Δ3)^(1/19) = (4 + Δ4)^(1/ 24) = s * 2^(1/12)

This s is not the same as your s, but it covers the same infinite set of possibilities. [Note: other possibilities arise when s changes from note to note; Δ3, Δ4 will then have to change too or a pair of difference variables will have to come into the equations]

What would be really helpful to me, and maybe others, is a numerical example to illustrate sections 3.4 and 3.5.

PS This is what Kamin wrote and your reply:

..."BTW I managed to tune with a more closed tone than yours, giving all the energy to the attack and leaving the piano find its tone by itself for the rest, and I like it, it provide more tactile sensations to the pianist hence a larger dynamic palette. On a piano with not so rich tone due to old strings (I've done it yesterday with some at last 50 years old wire) that gives very pleasing results."...

I'm looking forward to hearing the tone you like the best, no doubt about superb results...Is it warmer now in Paris?

Hi Ian,

You wrote:..."This explains the difference between theory and practice very clearly. Practice does not depend on the way theory is written down on paper or whether it is written down at all."...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but whichever way I read your statement I get puzzled. Are you saying that theories, when it comes to practice, have no meaning? I try not to confuse, but "fuse" theory and practice. In my view, practice too can inspire theory and, if correct, the latter will improve the first.

..."Thank you for the links; unfortunately some of the sound samples they contain are no longer available."...

Thanks for reporting. I'm going to see what happened.

..."When you tune an equal temperament as perfectly as you can, you are eliminating as many imperfections as possible."...

Nop, it's not a question of imperfections alone, actually I like imperfections when I get their meaning.

..."I used the word consonance to describe the results. Maybe it was not a good word to use."...

The word is ok, do you hear too much consonance? If yes, what do you mean?

..."The more successful you are, the more you will emphasize any differences from the colour and character of other temperaments people hear and like. There is nothing you can do about this; it's their preference."...

We were not discussing people's preferences, nor color again.

..."The equation I suggested is always true when the scale or stretch factor is constant across the octaves of interest. It could also be called s.

(3 − Δ3)^(1/19) = (4 + Δ4)^(1/ 24) = s * 2^(1/12)

This s is not the same as your s, but it covers the same infinite set of possibilities."...

Have you checked (your) s ≤ 0 ?

..."[Note: other possibilities arise when s changes from note to note; Δ3, Δ4 will then have to change too or a pair of difference variables will have to come into the equations]"...

Hmmm…, do you prefer that way? If yes, why?

..."What would be really helpful to me, and maybe others, is a numerical example to illustrate sections 3.4 and 3.5."...

Numerical of which kind? Thanks for this feedback.

I see:..."PS This is what Kamin wrote...:

..."...more closed tone than yours, giving all the energy to the attack..."...

Yes, we were talking about attack Vs sustain. Isaac likes "all the energy to the attack", I prefer a beam.

Regards, a.c.

P.S.: ..."You and I both know the model will not stand up to rigorous mathematical scrutiny."...

It will be relevant to exactly understand what you meant.

Hi Alfredo

Theory and practice

You have explained how your experimentation led to your theory and, without question, your theory will have improved your practice. But you also imply you apply a more complex version of your theory than you have written down:

"As I've mentioned, when we get to practice, "equal deviations in frequency from just intonation" as a rigid solution would not work, in that "tuning" is like drawing on a sheet of paper that is constantly shifting. For this reason we must be able and ready to tune different curves."

In the paper the Chas Algorithm is stated in its simplest form in 3.1, and in 3.2 you say "the delta variable obtains two differences, in a 1:1 ratio, equal in value and opposite in
sign, one negative and one positive (0-19 negative and 0-24 positive)" . We see that in 4.0, Table 1; deviations of -/+ 0.93517 at XII (3-Δ) and XV (4+Δ).

It appears that you are talking about this specific scale of frequencies, but it is not explained where the differences in Table 2 come from or, because the rows are not identified, what they relate to. Nor is it explained how the beats and ratios in sections 3.4 and 3.5 relate to the numbers in in sections 4.0 and 4.1, or vice versa. This is makes it difficult for us to understand how to put the theory in practice. You know what it all means so you do not have the same problem.

So far I have been talking about s=1, but going back to section 3.3, you introduce integer and fractional values for s. Again it is very difficult to understand how these would be applied in practice. The significance of equations (5) and (6) and the two different values of delta is not clear. Without an explanation equations (5) and (6) seem to be in contradiction of each other.

All this is just an indication of why the paper, as it is, would not begin to stand up to the sort of scrutiny mathematicians such as Kees would undertake.

If we can see examples of specific values of delta and s resulting in specific beats and frequencies, we may begin to fully understand the theory.

I hope this answers your main questions, but it is getting rather late.

Hi Ian,

Thank you for your reply:

"Theory and practice

You have explained how your experimentation led to your theory and without question your theory will have improved your practice. But you also imply you apply a more complex version of your theory than you have written down.

"As I've mentioned, when we get to practice, "equal deviations in frequency from just intonation" as a rigid solution would not work, in that "tuning" is like drawing on a sheet of paper that is constantly shifting. For this reason we must be able and ready to tune different curves."

I see, actually I meant to say the opposite; in fact, at the end of that sentence I wrote "This is what "s" represents.", meaning that what I/we apply is not more complex than what is written down. We must be able and ready to tune different curves (in practice); and (in theory) This is what "s" represents.

..."In the paper the Chas Algorithm is stated in its simplest form in 3.1 and in 3.2 you say "the delta variable obtains two differences, in a 1:1 ratio, equal in value and opposite in sign, one negative and one positive (0-19 negative and 0-24 positive)" . We see that in 4.0, Table 1 deviations of -/+ 0.93517 at XII (3-Δ) and XV (4+Δ).

It appears that you are talking about this specific scale of frequencies, but it is not explained where the differences in Table 2 come from, or what they relate to (because the rows are not identified)."...

I hope this helps: the first line of differences in Table 2 (below) come from Table 1. If you notice, they are on the left in bold. All the other difference values come from chromatic octaves, 12ths and 15ths, i.e. differences related to partials 2, 3 and 4.

section 4.1 - Table 2
Partial 2 differences......Partial 3 differences.......Partial 4 differences
...0.0005312769............-0.002125389965.........0.002125389965

..."Nor is it explained how the beats and ratios in sections 3.4 and 3.5 relate to the numbers in in sections 4.0 and 4.1, or vice versa."...

In section 3.4 and 3.5 beats symmetries deriving from delta are visualized. (3–∆) and (4+∆) are also in section 4.0 - Table 1, on the left (red and green).

..."This makes it difficult for us to understand how to put the theory in practice. You know what it all means so you do not have the same problem."...

Yes, I understand that it is not straightforward, that's why I'm happy to help.

..."So far I have been talking about s=1, but going back to section 3.3, you introduce integer and fractional values for s. Again it is very difficult to understand how these would be applied in practice."...

As I've mentioned, integer and fractional values for s and s1 represent no more no less what we apply in practice.

..."The significance of equations (5) and (6) and the two different values of delta is not clear. Without an explanation equations (5) and (6) seem to be in contradiction of each other."...

Equations (5) and (6) were first pointed out by Roy123. So, I provided a case (s = -9/8) as a demonstration; you can find it here:

#1208057 - 05/29/09 01:19 PM
Re: CIRCULAR HARMONIC SYSTEM - CHAS [Re: UnrightTooner]
alfredo capurso

and I thought it was reasonable to improve the explanation in the paper along Roy123's advice:

#1208202 - 05/29/09 04:47 PM
Re: CIRCULAR HARMONIC SYSTEM - CHAS [Re: alfredo capurso]

Roy123:

..."In order to make your paper read correctly, I suggest that you add some words to make your intent clear. You could say, for example. "In equation five, we will select values for S and S1, and calculate a new value for delta that makes the equality true. In Equation 6, we keep the same values of S and S1 and compute yet another value of delta that makes the equality true."

With such an explanation, I think your readers would have correctly interpreted your math--I certainly would have."

..."All this is just an indication of why the paper, as it is, would not begin to stand up to the sort of scrutiny mathematicians such as Kees would undertake."...

Well, Ian, we are both making a little, in my view positive effort and I hope we are making some progress. Even now, having acknowledged your points, I cannot imagine what sort of mathematicians Kees comments may belong to.

..."If we can see examples of specific values of delta and s resulting in specific beats and frequencies, we may begin to fully understand the theory."...

You can use the scale ratio and calculate specific frequencies; you can find specific beats in Chas sequence and flowchart.

Thank you very much for your valuable feedbacks. Let me know about any other question.

Regards, a.c.
.

Hi Alfredo

I'll have a look at the posts you mention, no point in repeating what has already be said.

Although I can't speak for Kees, my idea of a mathematical model is to represent what happens in practice with some accuracy.

What I'd be interested to know is how closely one of you tunings conforms to Table 1, or its equivalent for a particular piano. For instance, if your (4+Δ) was tuned to 1760.9 what might the actual values for the other notes be? Do you have some measurements of these frequencies (or cents) for any value of (4+Δ)?

Hi Ian,

You wrote:..."...my idea of a mathematical model is to represent what happens in practice with some accuracy."...

I hope I've managed to explain how the Chas model can represent what happens in practice with "some" accuracy, to the seventh decimal point.

..."What I'd be interested to know is how closely one of you tunings conforms to Table 1, or its equivalent for a particular piano."...

Beat-wise? Very much. As for frequency values, you have certainly understood that Table 1 refers to one case: s = 1; that is the equivalent for a particular piano. For many other pianos we manage "s".

..."For instance, if your (4+Δ) was tuned to 1760.9 what might the actual values for the other notes be?"...

The actual values for the other notes may well be those which derive from Chas scale ratio. I have made a digital comparison with 12th root of two ET and shared it here in PW.

"s" frequency values for all particular pianos, i.e. the equivalent of Table 1, may depend on the piano's particular scaling.

Regards, a.c.

Chas tuning mp3 - live recording on Fazioli
http://myfreefilehosting.com/f/07c3ca3905_6.32MB

CHAS Tuning mp3 - Amatorial recording on a Steinway S (5’ 1”, 155 cm)
http://www.box.net/shared/od0d7506cv

C.HA.S. The Harmonic Temperament, Chopin - Rondo in E-flat major, Op.16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWlTHnnN4cc

CHAS THEORY - RESEARCH REPORT BY G.R.I.M. - Department of Mathematics, University of Palermo - 2009, Italy:
http://math.unipa.it/~grim/Quaderno19_Capurso_09_engl.pdf

Article by Professor Nicola Chiriano - published by P.RI.ST.EM (Progetto Ricerche Storiche E Metodologiche) - University "Bocconi" - Milano, 2010 - (Italian):
http://matematica.unibocconi.it/articoli/relazioni-armoniche-un-pianoforte

Hi Alfredo

Thank you for all your replies; I have looked at Roy's postings and some others.

On reflection, maybe we should not tune pianos by mathematics after all. The Babylonians came up with square roots but certainly did not intend them for pianos. Then Pythagoras discovered the comma and messed up the circle of fifths. Today we have "mathematical interference symmetry" and "heavy mathematics" to thank for the only pure method of tuning pianos.

So I've decided to return to my naive and uniformed way of looking at things. I think it's best to look at Chas as a model of what you do and see what we can learn from it. If it helps you and anyone else to succeed with your tuning method then it's served its purpose. We would do well to recognize you follow in the tradition of Archimedes who explained the principle of the levers which underlie the symmetry of your beats.

What I can aspire to is a simple model in which the scale is stretched out across the octaves so that intervals sit between the partials. I think that can apply to both unequal and equal temperaments and I will work out how to do both one day.

I've learnt a lot from the debate.

Hi Ian,

..."On reflection, maybe we should not tune pianos by mathematics after all."...

Perhaps you are talking about ETD tunings, few cents deviations and stuff like that. In fact, I do not know of any aural tuner (like I am) that tunes pianos by mathematics. But maybe you are talking about one mathematical aspect, namely proportions, which in my view is what any instrument's tuning is about. Then, how and why proportions affect our tunings can always be understood and mastered to different degrees, with no contraindications.

..."So I've decided to return to my naive and uniformed way of looking at things."...

Is there a way we can return to naivety?

..."What I can aspire to is a simple model in which the scale is stretched out across the octaves so that intervals sit between the partials."...

One day I might ask you to lend me your definition. Thanks again and... keep in touch.

Best wishes, a.c.
.

Yes, now you mention it, proportions.

Greek temples are models of perfection but their columns are not in strict mathematical proportion. The architects and builders adjusted their shape to allow for the way we see them.

Proportions and perception.

Hi.

Two links that I'm happy to share. The first is about symmetries, the second is about music analysis. The latter shows the Spiral Array, and also the paper (maths) is in the web.

Marcus du Sautoy: Symmetry, reality's riddle
http://www.ted.com/talks/marcus_du_sautoy_symmetry_reality_s_riddle.html

Engineer-Pianist Elaine Chew Talks About Using Mathematical and Software Tools to Analyze Music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GPwVNPuKuA&feature=player_embedded#!

Regards, a.c.

Those video's have nothing to do with piano tuning, chas or not.

Kees

..."Those video's have nothing to do with piano tuning, chas or not."

Kees,

perhaps we don't need to agree on what has to do with piano tuning and what not, perhaps every single piano tuner follows her/his own unique route.

Generally speaking, I'm with those who think that knowledge of arts and sciences is useful at any level; and when it comes to piano tuning, of course, I'm referring to common literature and my own experience. Now, the first video is about symmetries, the second is about music analysis and both subjects have been of great help to me. In particular the notion of symmetry was fundamental in regard to the temperament model that I'm sharing, be it theory or practice.

C.Ha.S. Model - RESEARCH REPORT BY G.R.I.M. - Department of Mathematics, University of Palermo - 2009, Italy:
http://math.unipa.it/~grim/Quaderno19_Capurso_09_engl.pdf

..."Alfredo, you will get an apology from me if you can prove me wrong."...

The problem, Kees, is that you didn't prove yourself to be right, you gave no arguments nor evidences in regard to a long long series of statements and insinuations and all that, to me, sounds like true libel style. On this, I've had to inform Frank.

That said, I wanted to share one more video (only the esthetics) about Fibonacci numbers, the Golden section and logarithmic progressions in nature:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlxZpNP9zy8

There I found a link to a brief article where you read:

..."In 1999, retired mathematician Clement Falbo measured a series of nautilus shells at San Francisco's California Academy of Sciences, and he found that while they were indeed logarithmic spirals (like the golden spiral), their ratios ranged from about 1.24 to 1.43, with an average ratio of about 1.33 to 1, not even close to the 1.618... ratio of the Golden Spiral."...

http://www.shallowsky.com/blog/science/fibonautilus.html

As a matter of fact, 1.33.., i.e. 4:3 is our fourth ratio too.

Regards, a.c.

Edit: in the web, a paper by Clement Falbo: "The Golden Ratio - A Contrary Viewpoint".

Hi All,

Last summer I contacted Professor Sander Germanus, director of the Huygens-Fokker Foundation. From his kind reply I understood that the Chas model would have been valued by their scientific coordinator Manuel Op de Coul. Today the paper is included in the Foundation's Tuning and Temperament bibliography:

http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/bibliography.html

This is a positive piece of news that I am happy to share.

Regards, a.c.
.

Hi,

Two videos that have more to do with music, interpretation and two favorite composers. Thanks to two friends that pointed them out:

‪Alicia de Larrocha Mozart Concerto 27 in B Flat‬
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_MEkfDA-x4&feature=share

‪Yuja Wang - Scriabin, Selections for Solo Piano‬
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHO4Ucw9zL4&feature=related

Regards, a.c.
.

#1888755 - April 30, 2012 12:50 PM
Re: Ethics/Technicians/ Status [Re: Emmery]

Ken Knapp:

1000 Post Club Member

Registered: April 18, 2006
Posts: 1845
Loc: Pennsylvania

"Well, the moderator reports are beginning to roll in on this topic. It seems to happen every time.

I just get absolutely flabbergasted by how any discussion on ptg/non-ptg, rpt/non-rpt can escalate into insults, accusations, name calling, whatever. I don't care who you are or what side you're on. If you participate in this mud slinging you make yourself look foolish in the eyes of your customers when they read that stuff.

Maybe THIS particular topic hasn't degenerated into the cesspool some of the others have, but it's only a matter of time. I don't know what the answer is. Perhaps we should ban the very mention of the PTG, or RPT.

Some will think I've conveniently closed the topic when one side or the other looks better and thus stopped any chance of rebuttal. So don't forget to send me PM's accusing me of favoring one side or the other..
_________________________
Ken

- . - . - . -

Well, I'm very much surprised, actually bewildered as I would never have thought that the above topic needed to be closed down. And I'm very sorry to have to use this particular thread in order to express my disapproval.

..."If you participate in this mud slinging you make yourself look foolish in the eyes of your customers when they read that stuff."...

Ken, that may be your own opinion. But... who is "you"? Who has been "slinging"?

..."Maybe THIS particular topic hasn't degenerated into the cesspool some of the others have, but it's only a matter of time."...

This surely is your own feeling, your own prediction.

..."I don't know what the answer is."...

That, in my view, cannot justify your act, though you are right, yours is not an answer nor a solution.

..."Perhaps we should ban the very mention of the PTG, or RPT."...

I do not think that would be a good solution either, though I'm not a Forum management expert... perhaps it could be enough to simply moderate individual abusers or reports that make no sense.

I was on the point of thanking Emmery for his topic and his elaborations, together with others, what I'm now forced to do from here.

Ken, as I find your decision incomprehensible and unjustifiable, I politely ask you to remedy by re-opening that Topic on Ethics/Technicians/ Status, so letting All people with dignity give their contribution.

Regards, a.c.
.

Hi Ken,

I was hoping in a reply, few words that could help me understand your decision. Now I hope you appreciate my attempt to let you know what I think, being on the other side, i.e. being one of many people that are ready to enjoy and contribute to this Forum.

You see, if the abrupt closing down of a topic was actually one of many options you have, that would not really be a problem for me, I'm able to accept (or not accept) a rule. What I find somehow disturbing is when you give moot reasons for justifying your act. I think that every adult customer...can use eyes and brain, so elaborating a unique way of thinking, and I find difficult to believe that you can truly anticipate the course of a topic... in time, what ever the subject may be.

You also wrote "I do not care who you are...", and on this I would actually like to tell you more: I too am an adult. When some facts or events are still within common sense and civil/human respect, I do not need to be convinced on what is best and what may get worse.

You mentioned an answer..., I suggest that you (or any other moderator) simply write: End of this Topic.

Regards, a.c.
.