Explanation of Reverse Well

[Ron Nossaman]

>Ron -
>I thank you for your efforts to get RW clarified.  It took a lot of work
>and got you flamed.  (sort of like my efforts to improve the quality of
>posts on this list :-))  I agree that it would be more constructive to
>discuss the practical and theoretical ways of avoiding RW rather than
>complaining about how often we find examples of RW in the field.

* Thanks, Carl, but I'm not even singed. A response that irrational is
merely sad, rather than threatening. I was just looking for clarification,
which I, and the rest of us, finally got.



>But when I attempted to discuss this on the list recently, there was
>very little discussion.  Someone with little knowledge of the subject
>would have learned about the benefits of contiguous thirds, but little
>else.

* We've all had that reaction on subjects of specific interest to us, but
apparently not to anyone else. It happens, and we move on. That doesn't mean
we can't try again later if we consider it important.



>You challenged Bill to accurately describe the sequence that resulted in
>an RW temperament.  He finally did, and then accused you of being a
>practitioner despite no supporting evidence that I could find.  So post
>your own tuning sequence and prove him wrong.
>
>Carl Root, RPT
>Rockville, MD

* Well now, I didn't exactly challenge him. I asked. Then I asked again. His
"evidence" for the accusation was that, since I pointed out that what he was
calling "Reverse Well" was merely an incompetently tuned ET, I must therefor
be part of the conspiracy that he rants about, but doesn't believe in. Like
I also pointed out to him, it's all nicely circular and self contained. Read
that last sentence of yours again carefully with your reality sensors
engaged. He can't allow any evidence into his reality that remotely
contradicts his basic premises. It would spoil the perception. I'll pass on
even making the attempt. I just wanted an accounting of his terminology,
which I finally got. I'm satisfied.

 Ron