why use non-ET?

[JIMRPT@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 4/19/2000 12:06:22 PM, Ron K. wrote:

<<Some of your most musical tunings to date were possibly 
not ET, but accidents while trying to hit the ET target.>>

Ron;
 I am enjoying your graphs even if I don't agree with some of your 
conclusions :-)

 Let's change the terms here in your statement........, i.e.,
.......Some of your most musical tunings to date were possibly not 
Werkmeister, but accidents while trying to hit the Werkmeister 
target................... makes as much reasonable sense as does your 
original statement...doesn't it? You could substitute any of the temperaments 
in this statement and still be correct couldn't you? 
 Aiming at an "ET target" and missing it no more invalidates the ET theory 
than does aiming at an "alternative" target and missing it invalidates that 
theory....does it?  Is it a mistaken action to call something 'ET' which 
misses the mark by .3 cents on a note? If so, would it not also be a mistaken 
action to miss a 1/7 meantone by .3 cents on one note and still say it was an 
1/7 meantone?

 And couldn't we also reasonably say that 'no one' has ever tuned a 'true' 
Valotti-Young?
Jim Bryant (FL)