To the followers of the “Lehman Cult” Vol.1
Many of you have likely been approached by someone claiming to be from the fire department who then tried to sell you a fire extinguisher, haven’t you? Scammers always cloak themselves in the mantle of “authority” when they approach you, leading you to buy a fire extinguisher you never needed in the first place. Well,
I have finally taken action on something I felt I had to do for years. What is that? It is your “salvation”. My mission is to bring those of you who have been “brainwashed” by a cult back to the real world.
In my view, the writings spewed out by Bradley Lehman amount to nothing less than the teachings of a cult. Aren’t his preposterous “theories” eating away at the minds of good people, deluding them into believing that *he* is the savior? That is precisely why I so fervently hope that his “followers” will break free from this cult as soon as possible and regain their “sound judgment”. Please do not mistake this for a matter of personal “likes or dislikes” or a desire for “attention”. I myself once came close to falling under his “spell”. Back when he first started bombarding me with PDFs and URLs, I actually read them seriously. But at one point, I began to wonder: “Is this really true?”.
Here, I would like to present a record of the “dialogue” I had with him over the course of several days. This exchange took place in the comments section of a Facebook group called “Bach and his Time”. You will understand why this particular group’s comments section was chosen as the venue as you read through the dialogue I am about to share.
———————-
Bradley Lehman
Toshi,
1 Emile Jobin posted his short article onto a website in May 2005, before the second printed section of my Early Music article (in the May 2005 issue) was mailed out to subscribers. He was reacting to only the printed first section, not the “supplementary” published on Oxford’s website (as overflow part of part 1), and more crucially, not to any of the argument that was presented in my printed second section or its own overflow files. My article was too long for printing in a single issue, so Oxford broke it into these sections and got me to agree to put parts of it only onto their website as “supplementary” sections. It wasn’t ideal, as people already started debating the first section online while they were waiting 3 months to see the next part of the article, and to find out what the rest of the argument was. There were people who were already into their squabbles and sure (for themselves) that there was nothing more substantial coming to satisfy them.
2 Jobin wrote his May 2005 piece from an assumption that there was nothing to my presentation or the evidence but making up a reading of Bach’s drawing, as graphology. He therefore seriously missed the points about sixth-comma regularity (as typical French and Italian practice before Bach’s drawing), and about enharmonic flexibility being crucial, and about testing all the music. Jobin slightly revised his article in October of that year, and that’s what is still available today, but it still does not cite anything but the printed first section of my work. (Peter Williams is another scholar who never got beyond citing only the first section on his way to pooh-poohing everything.)
3 Jobin is the one who turned Bach’s drawing into a hand-drawn circular figure (visible in his article), argued almost entirely from graphology, made up a different C-F fifth, and changed the positions of the tempered intervals. You have made (apparently) AI-generated versions of circular layouts for your own blog, and then based your own observations on those distorted versions (circular, not line drawing) of Bach’s work. [See below for the snapshot.] You say in your blog that the “circle” business comes from my interpretation, but it does not. You got it from Jobin, or somewhere else. You’ve put up your own analysis of Jobin’s ideas vs what you apparently believe to be mine, showing your own reasoning from the assumption of circles rotated in some way that makes sense to you.
4 My articles in print all do not ever lay out temperaments as circles. I present them as lines of establishing the naturals first (the Ut-Re-Mi-Fa-Sol-La hexachord of the C major scale) in regular positions, and then finishing everything else as careful compromises. And I gave my reasons for that in the articles. I’d point out also: Bach had already been tuning harpsichords by ear for 20-some years, since being a teenager, before he wrote the title page of the Well-Tempered Clavier. He was working at 12-lever keyboards where the keyboard layout itself is 2 different types of levers, no circle. There is nothing “arbitrary” about taking care of all one type of lever first, the naturals, and then going on to the other ones to finish the job. And again, I described that procedure 20 years ago in the BBC article.
5 Your complaint is that I started the “circle” (not a circle) in a place that you consider “arbitrary” and “forced”. Here is your accusatory question, verbatim: “Why did he have to arbitrarily force the starting point of the circle of fifths to be F?”
6 So: your questions here come from distorting the drawing into a circle, and from assuming (like Jobin) that there is little to this but graphology, and from misrepresenting my own arguments as calling for a “circle of fifths” (all through your blog in your temperament postings, always a “circle” with no other possibilities)…and then alleging that I “forced” the solution in a way that you don’t understand. In your start from an AI drawing as a circle, not a line against the edge of a page as Bach drew it, you complain that I am the one who must “distort its geometry”.
7 As we have discussed privately this week, you also have the false premise throughout your blog where you reduce all your remarks about temperaments to cent calculations…as if that were ever necessary for harpsichord tuning. You reduce Silbermann’s work to calculations. You reduce “Aron’s meantone” to calculations. You reduce examples by Werckmeister and Kirnberger to calculations. You reduce mine to calculations. Then, dramatically, you announce that my “mathematical house of cards collapses”. All of this mathematical stuff that you are proposing to “collapse” is your own construction, your own ways of comparing things with numbers. The “house of cards” here is, frankly, your own way of parsing the material as speculation rather than doing the work hands-on by ear at a harpsichord. I get it that you are probably trying to make fair numerical comparisons, but again, that’s not harpsichord tuning. Today, here in this group, you took Andre Bourbaki’s mention of the d’Alembert temperament, and immediately you reduced it to your mathematical calculations of the fifths in cents, adding up the values arithmetically so you can test if it’s right (for your own opinion) and to fit into your own understanding. See what I mean? Have you tested Bourbaki’s observation about the flats at a harpsichord, in d’Alembert’s temperament?
8 Another false premise is your assumption and statement that “entire sonic universe was built upon just two standard, universally recognized “yardsticks”” of quarter-comma fifths and pure fifths, which is manifestly mistaken. We have discussed that thoroughly. Other sizes of fifths are well documented in the literature, before and around Bach. I advised you where to read about it.
9 Let’s be clear. Anything proceeding from a pile of false assumptions and false premises is logically invalid. That’s basic logic. (A premise of (NOT P) can’t imply anything reliable about Q, provable by P alone.)
10 Your complaints throughout your blog, and in Facebook postings recently, are that my conclusions don’t fit where you’d like things to land. But your reasoning is itself based on distortions, misrepresentations, and frankly wrong premises where you are not bringing original sources, and not accurately representing the sources that you do bring. It’s not my role to explain to your goalpost-moving satisfaction why my work doesn’t fit your expectations, especially when your expectations are based on foundations that fall apart. It’s my role to be as faithful as possible to the material and all available evidence. And that’s what is in print and on my FAQ, for years already.
11 I’ve pointed out kindly and privately where your assumptions and premises have been wrong, and where your accusatory questions don’t make sense (because they are conclusions from your own errors). And you demanded that it be shown to you yet again and only in this public forum. So, here it is. (But I don’t know why I bother to offer what you ask for, given that today you have already dismissed all my previous work as a “waste of time”.)
12 Illustration captured from your own blog website, where you are misrepresenting Bach’s drawing as distorted into a joined circle, and misrepresenting my interpretation as this “arbitrary” (to you) rotation of everything:
[Some kind of image]
Bradley Lehman
And Facebook’s threading of this discussion has already turned into out-of-sequence garbage, because it’s not designed as any orderly discussion forum. But see what I posted before this, the 9 snapshots where I showed that all the answers were already available to you. As I remarked there: the person who starts a quarrel doesn’t get to dictate or limit what written defense or snapshots his adversary gets to bring to defend his position. If you don’t want to see snapshots, that’s your own refusal to take in evidence as a valid part of reasoning.
Bradley Lehman
13 One more thing. What is this absolute nonsense on your blog page, in one of your several postings trying to knock down my work? I quote you:
“Conclusion: The Ear vs. The Diagram
This is the issue with decoding Bach’s scroll purely through an academic lens. Theorists like Lehman see a static diagram to be solved like a Sudoku puzzle. But as a harpsichordist who listens to the strings, I know that tuning is an act of live compromise.”
What is “theorists like Lehman”? What is casting yourself in public as a harpsichordist, but confirming to me privately (this week) that you are actually not one?
I am not a “theorist” (as if that were something to dismiss). I am a professional harpsichordist, one who gets paid to tune harpsichords and play them. I have made solo and ensemble recordings, and played in ensembles. About half the weeks in the year, I play harpsichord solos in church services as part of my church job. I have been tuning harpsichords by ear for 43 years, a harpsichordist who really does listen to the strings. But you are trying to dismiss me as only a “theorist” who doesn’t understand practice.
This grandstanding forum by you is a waste of my time. I have one of my harpsichords at church where I will tune it this afternoon and play it tomorrow. I played 2 excerpts from the Well-Tempered Clavier there last week, and part of Ritter’s F-sharp minor suite there the previous week. Tomorrow is 2 more WTC excerpts. I have expert work to go do in this field, today. You are a blogger who openly refuses to read my older work again, saying that it is for a you a waste of your time. Your own blog amuses you, apparently, along with seeing how far you can string along a waste of anyone else’s time.
片山俊幸
Bradley Lehman Dear Bradley,
To be frank, I felt that the text you sent this time was the most persuasive among the many you have sent me so far. This is because it was expressed in “your own words”—not via PDFs or URLs (though, of course, those PDFs or URLs were undoubtedly your words as well). Indeed, this is how you should have done it from the start. I learned about several circumstances this time, including the specific points where I had “offended” you. I would like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere apologies for that. Now, let us address the specific points:
1. I have read that essay. In fact, that essay was my starting point for this entire issue. Furthermore, the “Circle of Fifths” I used there was adapted from that article; it was not generated by AI. Since that circle was so easy to understand, I also used that same diagram in my subsequent column, “Bach’s Tuning Method – 2” (the article that discussed your tuning method). The reason is simple: as I mentioned above, the diagram was exceptionally clear. You seem dissatisfied with this, but I personally believe that the diagram made it much easier to grasp the “numerical overview” of your tuning method.
2. I am unaware of the specific instance where Jobin criticized you in that manner.
3. Do you think so? As I mentioned in point 1, I find that “Circle of Fifths” to be very easy to understand. After all, it enabled me to “grasp” the numerical basis of your “Bach’s tuning method”.
4–7. Understood. I have no intention of raising further objections regarding your “methodology”, let alone offering anything that could be construed as “criticism” any more. If my “impolite writing” (a quality I myself somewhat sense in it) has angered you, I would like to offer a sincere apology. Now, in preparing this reply, I have read your initial 2005 draft. However, I still could not find the answer to the “question” I had posed to you there. Please allow me to explain briefly.
A) Why start from F?
It is true that the diagram Bach drew depicts the sequence in “reverse” to the actual keyboard layout (i.e., “right to left” rather than “left to right”). I can surmise that this is likely the reason you dispute the Jobin’s theory. You posit that one should first “tune five Pythagorean fifths narrowed by 1/6, starting from F”. You then suggest this is followed by three Pythagorean fifths, and subsequently by three Pythagorean fifths narrowed by 1/12.
B) Practices of the time
However, how do you interpret the two distinct letters (F and C) written at the left and right ends of Bach’s diagram? Does this not imply that Bach intended for the tuning to be performed in precisely that order? After all, why did contemporaries like Werckmeister and Kirnberger all use C as their starting point? Other musicians, too—almost as if following a standard template—began their circle of fifths with four or five meantone-tempered fifths. Was this not a fairly “universal” practice at the time? Your tuning method deviates significantly from that “convention”.
8 This is clearly a misunderstanding on your part. I never wrote that *all* tuning systems (from the Baroque era) were “constructed based on 1/4-comma fifths and pure fifths”. This should be obvious to anyone reading my other column, “Silbermann, Barotti, and Young”. I would like you to retract that statement.
9. What exactly are these “erroneous assumptions or premises”? You have yet to present them to me, haven’t you?
10. Please point out specifically where I am “moving the goalposts”.
11. I wish to express my respect for the fact that you have joined this discussion
12. I still maintain the view that Facebook is a suitable venue for debate, just as I stated in my private message to you.
13. It is unfortunate that you perceived me as trying to “dismiss your work”. I merely raised a question regarding your interpretation of “Bach’s tuning”—just one aspect of your body of work—and I have absolutely no intention of dismissing your character or your work as a whole. I ask that you please not misunderstand this point.
That concludes my response to your reply. Unfortunately, we did not reach a conclusion; my questions remain unresolved. However, I have a proposal: the presentation of “audio recordings”. Here is what I mean: could you upload audio recordings to this page—featuring any piece from *The Well-Tempered Clavier* (such as F-sharp minor, B major, or D-sharp minor)—performed using both your tuning method and Émile Jobin’s tuning method? I leave the choice of piece entirely up to you. Please choose any key you are convinced is better suited to the Lehman temperament. This will serve as your “testimony”—something far more effective than having people read any PDF. I am certain that the readers of my blog want this, too, as it is the only way to put an end to this ongoing debate. Would you be willing to grant this rather demanding request?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Bradley Lehman
“Moving the goalposts” is a real fallacy, and a way to waste an adversary’s time and attention in a discussion. Your behavior shows mastery of that tactic of perpetual dissatisfaction that keeps making the other person do all the work. You are either disingenuous or (less likely) unaware of it.
I have put more than 18 hours this week into listening, reading your blog, answering your questions, collecting relevant resources, studying them again, presenting them, re-framing them for you, and showing you where to learn the material that you claim to be interested in. There was a public response by me, and then several days of private discussion, and you demanded there be more rounds of public discussion here. (Public only; why? Grandstanding by you in front of your presumed audience?) You insisted that everything be only public, and only in the format you want, tailored allegedly for your own convenience. How privileged and self-entitled is that?
And every time, you moved the goalposts. You declared that the explanations, documents, links, snapshots, and re-framing were not good enough for you. You wanted things to be forced into different formats, or put elsewhere, or written without recourse to previous published work, or fit into your exact questions. Even when I have quoted your own words directly from your blog, and pointed out the specific problems, you moved the goalposts by saying there was something wrong or irrelevant with my answers there, too. You will *never* be pleased with the answers, and that is your game.
Both privately and here in this public place, I stepped you through specific and clearly stated places where your false premises lead to questions and conclusions that don’t make sense. You moved the goalposts and said you still don’t see any list of your false premises. You said it again today. You said today, and I quote: “What exactly are these ‘erroneous assumptions or premises’? You have yet to present them to me, haven’t you?” Is your awareness really that low, or are you being deliberately disingenuous?
Yesterday morning, I read Emile Jobin’s article again for myself, go be able to formulate 3 paragraphs of pertinent comment about it for you. And now you say you have never read it. How is that possible? For at least 3 rounds this year, and in more than 5 different forums each time, you have posted your ideas and your blog entry proposing to analyze his work. But you had NEVER READ HIS ARTICLE that you are pretending to represent fairly? (When I first read your posting this morning, before you had edited and changed your paragraph 1 of your response, you said there that you had not read Jobin. And then, you changed it later today to say that you have.) Even though his article is mostly about graphology, he concurs there that F tuning forks and C tuning forks were the ones in common practice around Bach.
Another false premise of yours is: It is somehow possible to represent someone else’s work in public while declining ever to read it. Jobin’s, mine, Werckmeister’s, anyone else’s: it is both disingenuous and dishonest to disseminate criticisms of anyone’s work where you have never even bothered to find out what they said. What you have been doing is irresponsible to the material, as well as insulting anyone who takes real scholarship seriously. If you have finally read Jobin now, TODAY, great; but you have been presenting your criticism of his work on your blog and in your forums for the bulk of 2026.
I have referred you to my published work because that is where the answers are. I showed you my 2009 letter to Early Music yesterday. That, along with the way people were ignoring the Enharmonics and other parts of my 2005 article, was part of the impetus to spend almost a whole year 2021-22 writing yet another peer-reviewed article for publication. I cast it at the level where keen 20-year-old university students (with typical musical background for that level) should be able to comprehend the sources and the reasoning. I tested drafts with real university students for their comments. I made very careful choices with anything around math and calculation, since those are not required for getting the principles. I worked through it with the journal’s copy editors and editorial staff. It is expert work that I will never do better. You know exactly where to get a free copy of that article. You know what the table of contents looks like for that issue, where I showed you the snapshot here yesterday.
But, for you, you either refuse it or say you can’t understand it, moving the goalposts. You said directly that you consider reading my articles a “waste of time”. Well, that is on you. The patient explanations and resources and the pointed responses to your questions are never good enough. You always demand more.
Now you are demanding that I make comparative recordings for you. But you will again find some way to move the goalposts and reject that, on any excuse. No. If you want to hear how my recommended temperament sounds, get the complete recordings of WTC1 by Peter Watchorn, Richard Egarr, Enrico Baiano, or Cristiano Holtz, among others. Listen to my own hour-long “Lent into Easter” set of excerpts from my own CDs, on YouTube. It shows how intonation helps to set contrasting moods.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2woFLXeGRbg…
Listen to my older videos where (with Dr Watchorn’s permission) I went twice through all of WTC1 with his recording, showing why the enharmonic part of the argument is important. Two outstandingly beautiful brand-new recordings (not crediting the temperament but sounding right) are by Gabriel Smallwood and Cristiano Gaudio, going through the repertoire around young Bach. I performed Bach WTC pieces in D minor and G-sharp minor for my parish this morning, giving them that contrasting expression because it is beautiful.
Nobody is going to put their own time or money into making you a Bach recording in Jobin’s temperament, just so you can move the goalposts in some other way. It doesn’t work in almost all the minor-key music going beyond one sharp or flat in the signature, or for major-key music beyond 2 or 3. I have tested that. I have shown all the reasoning in the 2022 article, going completely through Bach’s keyboard repertoire. You can test Jobin’s temperament yourself: set it up on a real harpsichord, play the music listening to the strings, pay attention to misspelled notes, and notice how discordant it is.
I don’t have to present new “testimony” to you at your demand. Again, there is so much self-entitlement by you. I have been playing in this tuning for 22 years. It is not done to please *you*, or your hope for pure major thirds, or for any other way you would be ready to move the goalposts and dismiss such a comparison.
(continued)
Lent into Easter 2020 – Bradley Lehman (part 1 of 7)
YOUTUBE.COM
Lent into Easter 2020 – Bradley Lehman (part 1 of 7)
Lent into Easter 2020 – Bradley Lehman (part 1 of 7)
Bradley Lehman
(continued from above posting)
Your own words stand. You said directly in your blog posting criticizing my work that their universe was either meantone fifths or Pythagorean fifths. I cannot retract *your* words. Be reasonable. It does not matter what you said elsewhere about Silbermann et al. You said directly (where proposing to evaluate my work as somehow faulty to you) that I supposedly “smuggled” a third size of fifth that contradicts their 18th century “universe”. If you want it retracted, retract your own words from your blog and your re-postings of it. They are YOUR words. You made it up in your lofty generalizations about music and principles. You contradict yourself, which is not a problem for me to fix in your words.
You are casting yourself as a knowledgeable early music fan. Well, then, read the sources, do the work, be responsible to the material, and listen to people’s ideas beyond your own.
Illustration: A snapshot of YOUR OWN WORDS on your blog saying that I have smuggled something foreign into their universe, and not sticking with “common sense” (such caustic accusations by you!). Nor have you studied “the evolution of historical temperaments thoroughly”. That’s what my colleagues and I do, study the sources and the history. In our private discussion, I pointed you toward thousands of pages of historical sources that you have not read. And you refused to read them. What is this setting yourself up as a person who is supposedly in a position to be thorough, a person in a lofty position to chide me and my work for allegedly going outside “their entire sonic universe”?
[Some kind of image]
片山俊幸
Bradley Lehman Dear Bradley,
Before I address your points, I must register a minor, gentle complaint. In our previous exchanges, we agreed to maintain an orderly debate by assigning paragraph numbers to our text. In your recent response, you seem to have forgotten this rule entirely and posted an unnumbered sequence of text. I can only assume that the sheer pressure of this acoustic debate has caused you some understandable agitation.
To ensure our readers can follow this discussion with the academic clarity it deserves, I have taken the liberty of organizing your response, assigning numbers to your segments, and addressing them thoroughly, point by point:
1. On “Moving the Goalposts” and the Request for EvidenceYou accuse me of “moving the goalposts” simply because I do not accept your old PDFs or secondary links as a substitute for a live, contemporary answer. Bradley, this is not a fallacy on my part; it is standard academic skepticism. I am not changing the rules of the game. I am simply asking you to defend the physical and historical foundations of your model using your own current words.
2. The Recycled Accusation of the “Two Yardsticks”You provided a screenshot of my Chapter 2, triumphantly presenting it as proof of an “erroneous premise”. However, you are deliberately resurrecting a point that I already clarified and settled in my previous reply (specifically in my prior points 4, 7, and 8. I never claimed that all Baroque tuning systems relied exclusively on two sizes of fifths. I stated that the common-sense vocabulary of well-temperament was conceptually grounded in combining variants of these familiar intervals. By bringing this up again, you are merely ignoring my explicit clarification and rehashing an argument that has already been addressed.
3. The Grand Omission: Your Total Silence on My Core QuestionsMore importantly, despite the vast volume of your text, you have completely evaded and ignored the actual core questions I posed to you:
A) Why Start from F?: You have still offered zero historical or acoustic evidence to justify why you had to flip Bach’s loops upside down and force an arbitrary starting point on F just to make your puzzle fit.
B) The Historical Convention of the C-Start: You have completely failed to explain why your model radically deviates from the 18th-century “common sense” established by Werckmeister, Kirnberger, and their contemporaries, who almost universally initiated their temperaments from C.
4. The Enigma of Your YouTube VideoYou sent me a link to your 2020 YouTube video (“Lent into Easter”). To be quite frank, I am at a complete loss as to what you are trying to demonstrate or prove by sharing this link. The description of that very video states that it is merely a compilation using your older CD tracks recorded back in 2005. Once again, instead of offering contemporary empirical proof, you are presenting 21-year-old audio data as an unchallengeable truth. If you wish to convince the modern early music community, a direct, fresh acoustic comparison with contemporary models—such as the audio test I proposed—would be infinitely more meaningful.
Finally, I will speak about the reality of intentional censorship. I politely asked if you would act as a mediator with your colleague, Mr. Claudio di Veroli, regarding the “Pending Approval” status of my comments in the other forum—an institution you confidently claimed does not engage in censorship.
Well, as of this morning, Monday, September 28th, the situation has developed in a most revealing way. My reply to Olivier B. Brault, which was merely hidden under “Pending Approval” yesterday, has now been completely and permanently DELETED without a trace.
This empirical reality completely shatters your public assurance of “No censorship!” Within less than 24 hours of you boasting about a fair forum, the machinery of your gatekeeping circle moved silently behind the scenes to completely erase my structural and mathematical critique from existence.This is no longer a matter of mere “moderation.” This is an active, provable collusion to suppress independent scholarship when it exposes the mathematical bankruptcy of your 20-year-old hypothesis. You do not need to command anyone, Bradley—the institutional bias of your closed circle handles the policing automatically to protect your dogma from facing the light of open debate.
The readers now see the absolute truth of the situation. True scholarship does not require the silent deletion of opposing viewpoints.
Sincerely,Toshi
For the complete 14-chapter mathematical and historical audit of well-temperaments, read the full publication here: https://excelkobo.net/archive/10603
[Some kind of image]
Bradley Lehman
片山俊幸 On your alleged “intentional censorship”: I have no idea about that. I am not involved. Whether other people do anything to restrict you, that is up to them.
3 – again you move the goalposts. I shared with you an HOUR of music that shows what the temperament sounds like. And you, moving the goalposts, rejected that as having any validity. If you would like to hear the church service where this morning I played Bach, you can ask me privately. But I cannot see how this would make any difference to you, because of your goalpost moving habit.
I have answered the F thing and the page rotation so many times, in places you refuse to look at, it is entirely your problem. You are, once again, moving the goalposts on valid ways to answer your questions.
Do you recognize that? Do you recognize how that wastes my time?
Your blog still has the things that I snapshotted. Therefore, your untrue premises and conclusions there are still current. You have not settled that.
I have my family and my jobs to pay attention to. Bye.
*Note:
As you can see, he was formally bidding us farewell here. I interpreted this to mean that he would never return to this specific thread—”Bach and his Time”—again. Yet, truth be told, a part of me felt, “He’ll be back soon enough anyway”. And that hunch of mine proved to be spot-on. He came back again, even though less than an hour had passed since his farewell. Taking advantage of the fact that I offered no counter-argument, he began to run wild in this space as if he owned the place. To make matters worse, the arrival of his “disciples” seemed to embolden him even further.
Bradley Lehman
OBVIOUSLY: The answers to the “why start on F” thing and the “why rotate the page” thing were both in the snapshots almost a week ago where you dismissed all that evidence as a “wall of text”. And they were again in the snapshots yesterday from my FAQ. And the F start is in the BBC article that I’ve advised you at least 3 or 4 times to read, on my website, which wouldn’t take you even 20 minutes if you would just go look at it. And my articles explain alignment of the “Ut Re Mi Fa Sol La” of the scale, which is the point of starting any ordinary-style temperament (which my papers also explain). Tuning Fa-Do-Sol-Re-La-Mi gives that sequence by fifths, which is the way harpsichord tuning is done. That, again, is explained clearly in my articles. One of those 6 notes (Ut Re Mi Fa Sol La) must agree with whatever the pitch source was: a tuning fork, or a wind instrument, or a string of a stringed instrument. Going from whatever point that is, we get those naturals by “starting on Fa” to get the C major scale. As I already said in what you call the “wall of text” from last week, it can be done from whatever pitch source that is; align all 6 of those notes of the scale to meet that point; and go do the rest of the tuning to be done. The result “starts on F” (Fa) to give that C major scale. THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT.
But no, you’ll just keep moving the goalposts forever to reject any explanations I will offer. Your behavior is trolling, not an inquiry into understanding the material.
My child is accusing me, correctly, of being on the screen again. I have answered all of your questions. AGAIN. And again and again and again. Stop moving the goalposts with your public pretense that I have not answered them.
片山俊幸
Bradley Lehman Dear Bradley,Thank you for your final remarks. I completely understand and respect that your family and professional responsibilities must take priority. Please return to them with a light heart; there is no need to spend any more of your precious time on this screen.
To the members of “Bach and his Time” and the readers who have closely followed this exchange, let us summarize where this historic debate officially concludes:
・The Censorship Acknowledged: Following the documented fact that my structural critiques were actively and permanently deleted from the peer forum this morning, Dr. Lehman has officially distanced himself from the actions of his inner circle, stating he has “no idea” and is “not involved”. The reality of institutional gatekeeping in that forum speaks for itself.(As I have already presented in my article, there is irrefutable evidence in the form of screenshots regarding this matter)
・The “F-Start” Mystery: In his final moments, Dr. Lehman attempted to explain his arbitrary F-start by superimposing a hexachord template (Ut-Re-Mi-Fa-Sol-La) starting on Fa. However, the historical reality remains untouched: he has still failed to present a single 18th-century treatise or contemporary peer source—such as Werckmeister or Kirnberger—that initiated their pragmatic well-temperaments from F rather than the universally recognized convention of C.
・The Auditory Absence: Dr. Lehman has officially declined to provide a fresh, comparative contemporary audio recording of his temperament versus Émile Jobin’s, choosing instead to stand firmly on his 21-year-old recorded legacy from 2005.
Bradley, thank you for stepping into this open arena. While you view my persistent structural questions as “trolling”, I view them as the necessary, rigorous, and empirical duty of independent research. True history and physical acoustics do not shift under pressure, nor do they require 1,000-page walls of text to survive the light of day.
This discussion is now officially closed. I wish you all the very best in your musical endeavors and parish performances.
Sincerely,Toshi
Owner & Administrator of “Bach and his Time”
Bradley Lehman
片山俊幸
Footnotes 44 and 74 in my 2022 article tell you exactly where to find some temperaments from 1695 and from the 18th century that start on F. I have advised you, what, 9 times to do the reading so you can understand the historical reality and the practical reality of harpsichord tuning?
Your “Auditory Absence” is also false. I told you directly that I played in this temperament this morning, playing in both D minor and G-sharp minor, and I offered to send you a way to hear the recording.
I was correct: this whole thing is your own grandstanding by you for your audience, and your personal refusal to follow the documents that give the answers of your questions. You invited me to participate here, apparently, to see how far you could string this along by goalpost-moving (no answer can ever possibly satisfy you), and then to declare whatever victory for yourself amuses you.
*Note:
It is claimed that *I* “deleted” the following sentence, but the person who actually deleted it was Bradley Lehman himself. The reason appears to be that he found the text he had written “utterly wretched” and felt ashamed of it in retrospect. He likely also wanted to say to Rob Turner—a “disciple” who happened to show up to “back him up”—”Look at this: Toshi criticizes others for censorship, yet here he is engaging in censorship himself, isn’t he?”.
Bradley Lehman
To myself as a reader, it feels like most of the blog page at https://excelkobo.net/archive/10603 was probably written by an AI chatbot, going only partly from human Toshi’s ideas. Is that why Toshi (the human) does not stand by his own words posted there or in the discussions? That a robot wrote substantial points of it, without being held responsible for some of the words and phrases being csustic and false accusations? Beyond some translation from Japanese prompts into suspiciously lofty English prose, what did an agentic AI actually write in forming its conclusions and its accusations?Furthermore, is it an AI (not entirely a human) also posting excerpts into Facebook groups to get engagement, not merely a human repeating his material manually?
In the discussion on the 2 Facebook forums, and in all of the private questioning this past week, I have been 100% a human. All the reading, thinking, consulting my written sources, taking snapshots, and writing my responses has been 100% my human work, knowing the material and not consulting an AI. The only AI intervention was:
— Facebook itself automatically putting a spell-checker onto my typing.
— On Saturday, I got help from a Google Translate translation of Emile Jobin’s 2005 French article, which I read side by side with the original to be sure I understood again all of his native-French linguistic points that I read 21 years ago in French.
I absolutely did not use any AI in deciding what to say to “Toshi”, or even how to say it.
And I assumed through all these discussions that I was talking with a 100% human man on the “Toshi” side. That would be a fair discussion.
It occurred to me during the night today, waking up many hours too early: what if my conversation on the 2 Facebook forums and in the private Messenger chat has been NOT with a 100% human, but instead, mostly with a chatbot (an agentic AI)? Is “Toshi” or his bot really taking my words from the discussion, and having the bot help to decide what to say to me next? Is it really a bot that is stringing me along and perpetually moving the goalposts, refusing to accept any of my answers, to see how long it can make me do work while it pretends on its side to be a human?
Is the whole discussion, in fact, a setup of a false situation where one side (Toshi’s) is partly or wholly a fake human? Let’s be clear: for my own side of the discussions, I did not consent to any such experiment, or any such entrapment set up without my knowledge.
That would explain such things as: Why are none of my snapshots from existing materials admitted to be any part of the evidence? Why must the paragraphs be numbered for someone’s convenience? Why does the “Toshi” side not learn from anything that was in my FAQ or my published articles for more than 20 years? Why is there an insistence on using only new text, which would be convenient to paste into a chatbot window?
I got back to sleep, eventually, after thinking through those ideas. It was stressful to consider those possibilities and their ramifications. It wasted another several hours of my life.
Toshi’s blog page cited here even says at the right side that the human is a software developer of user interfaces.
And I recalled what I said at the beginning. “This is Facebook chatter, and not publication, and not for any reproduction outside this immediate thread.” That includes: don’t plug my words into a robot (reproducing them into the robot’s interface) to have it help decide what to say back. The forum presented itself as a discussion between two 100% human men, not between one 100% man and an adversarial robot. I did not consent, and never would have consented, to such a thing where my task is to “persuade” a robot, not a person who can hear music.
TOSHI: As a human man, what can you say to confirm or refute this hypothesis that a large part of the “Toshi” side of the discussion was, in fact, done by a computer program rather than by 100% thinking from a human man?
And if you did use a chatbot or robot, what is your responsibility as a human to stand by everything it has helped you to say?
————
Bradley Lehman
Toshi, this is in reference to your current posting (the “cultists” thing) and your previous one about supposedly “collapsing” all my work. I have read them again at your blog.
I already posted all my public response to your “collapse” grandstanding post, several days ago. You dismissed it as merely a “wall of text”, and you excused yourself from reading all the linked items. You even ridiculed it in your next posting, both on your blog and on those groups. But those resources answer all your questions, and those answers have been in print for years.
There is nothing more to say in public than for me to post those same ones again, or to refer any interested readers (if there are any) over to see that in the “Early Music Performance Practice” group where you posted your challenge. But why should I bother to?
I have already pointed out that your statement in there about quarter-comma fifths and pure fifths sets up a false premise. You asserted, incorrectly and verbatim: “Their entire sonic universe was built upon just two standard, universally recognized “yardsticks”” [those two sizes of fifths]. Your “argument” there says I have “smuggled” a third type of fifth into it, in some way that seems improper to you, because you are not accepting that Bach could ever have done such thing unless he would also go on to make 12 of them.
And I have already answered that, too. You started your current “argument” by complaining about the way I answered it. You also asserted that the whole thing is only a “mathematical house of cards” to you. Well, it is a practical tuning that I and other experts have been performing in for 22 years, without it having to be “mathematical” at all. And I showed you the by-ear tuning instructions over there on “Early Music Performance Practice”. Just sit at a harpsichord and tune it, with no math.
I have shown you where to read my 2022 article, and my older ones, that address everything you have brought up as musical and historical points of practice. The sizes of fifths make sense. There is precedent for them before and around Bach. That article goes through all of Bach’s keyboard music, showing why the music itself constrains any possible solution to that size of fifths (not tempered more tightly than sixth-comma, and not ever having more than 3 pure fifths in succession).
Furthermore, if you had actually read that 2022 article, you would know about Kirnberger *not* using quarter-comma fifths (he faked them arithmetically), and he never published that layout (it was only in a private letter in his last year). This wouldn’t be a point in your own premises about “their entire sonic universe” allegedly using only quarter-comma fifths or pure fifths. As I showed also, in that article: Bach’s colleague Sorge published that “Kirnberger 3” layout with 4 quarter-comma fifths 35 years before Kirnberger ever mentioned it, during Bach’s lifetime; and it did it in a pedagogical context where he was bringing it up only to show pointedly why it doesn’t work. As you would know about Kirnberger with a bit more reading, he spent his whole adult career promoting a different half-comma temperament that has nothing to do with the “Kirnberger 3” (as some modern enthusiasts call it).
Nothing has to be proven *to you*. I have contacted you privately and explained all my objections, twice, in detail. Your response has been that you only want to see a public response, and only here on one group, and that I (or anyone else) is not allowed to put up any reasoned defense against your material because you want to keep track of it all in one place. Then, don’t post it in 6 or more places! (I have already pointed this out privately.) As you have pointed out, some people over on “Early Music Performance Practice” have already said that they blocked you, and they gave their reasons. So what? They can do whatever they want. They can choose to read you, or not. They can fancy your argument style and your reposting style, or not.
You’ve asked me to “be specific” in my objections to your blog and your arguments. I have been, point by point, in the private discussion. And I already explained, in print and 20 years ago, why I interpreted Bach’s drawing as I did, and why it starts on F. That’s all public record, and freely available on my websites, as it has been for 20 years. Your blog posting here brings up these things as if you’ve never cared simply to go look up the answers. I’ve advised you where to find more than a thousand pages of relevant sources, showing you where my articles have bibliographies and footnotes; and I gave you a further list of suggested resources privately (sources written in German and French).
There is no orderly discussion possible on Facebook because it is not designed to be such a forum. We discussed that privately, too, before your demand to have me say it in public and only on Facebook in one specific group, this one “Bach and his Time” where (to your knowledge) people haven’t blocked you.
And…once again…all the answers to your tuning-theory questions, and the evidence that you keep complaining you don’t have, is in my published peer-reviewed articles and in FAQs on my websites, going through everything that has been vetted by real scholars and expert performers. You know where those resources are, too. If you want to argue any points in that 2022 article, bring it up specifically with a page number and direct quotations, prove that you have read and understood it, and then present your questions. I’d be glad to answer such things privately, the same way that (I hope) you would contact any other scholar to ask about the work.
When people point out your mistakes of logic or mistakes of fact in this and your next posting (the one complaining about a supposed “cult”), it does not turn your objections into a “certificate of absolute victory” (your words!) as correct. That’s a well-known fallacy. Somebody whose feelings are hurt just because their ideas aren’t accepted, that doesn’t make them correct. Only evidence and valid reasoning from valid premises would lead to credible results. I showed that to you privately, too, and here’s that again:
https://thinkingispower.com/logical-fallacies/…
Your demand to have your points refuted point by point in public, because you apparently haven’t read the published research, is an example of the “moving the goalposts” fallacy. An argument and a set of evidence that was good enough for peer-reviewed publication isn’t good enough for you because you say you don’t understand the reasoning. Answers are given, but you don’t like the answers, so you demand different answers. Well, that’s covered in that same web page that collects fallacies, in the “I’m entitled to my opinion” section. Yes, you are entitled to have your own opinion for your own edification. But demanding that published work be re-framed and restated *for your own satisfaction* against your own questions, which you demand be done in public, that’s grandstanding by you. It is not academic discourse or any proof or disproof of anything.
Guide to the Most Common Logical Fallacies
THINKINGISPOWER.COM
Guide to the Most Common Logical Fallacies
Guide to the Most Common Logical Fallacies
片山俊幸
Thank you, Mr. Lehman, I have a request. Your lengthy posts make the back-and-forth of a “debate” very difficult. Could you please number each syllable from now on? Like this:
1.Toshi, this is in reference to your current posting (the “cultists” thing) and your previous one about supposedly “collapsing” all my work. I have read them again at your blog.
2.I already posted all my public response to your “collapse” grandstanding post, several days ago. You dismissed it as merely a “wall of text”, and you excused yourself from reading all the linked items. You even ridiculed it in your next posting, both on your blog and on those groups. But those resources answer all your questions, and those answers have been in print for years.
3.There is nothing more to say in public than for me to post those same ones again, or to refer any interested readers (if there are any) over to see that in the “Early Music Performance Practice” group where you posted your challenge. But why should I bother to?
4.I have already pointed out that your statement in there about quarter-comma fifths and pure fifths sets up a false premise. You asserted, incorrectly and verbatim: “Their entire sonic universe was built upon just two standard, universally recognized “yardsticks”” [those two sizes of fifths]. Your “argument” there says I have “smuggled” a third type of fifth into it, in some way that seems improper to you, because you are not accepting that Bach could ever have done such thing unless he would also go on to make 12 of them.
5.And I have already answered that, too. You started your current “argument” by complaining about the way I answered it. You also asserted that the whole thing is only a “mathematical house of cards” to you. Well, it is a practical tuning that I and other experts have been performing in for 22 years, without it having to be “mathematical” at all. And I showed you the by-ear tuning instructions over there on “Early Music Performance Practice”. Just sit at a harpsichord and tune it, with no math.
6.I have shown you where to read my 2022 article, and my older ones, that address everything you have brought up as musical and historical points of practice. The sizes of fifths make sense. There is precedent for them before and around Bach. That article goes through all of Bach’s keyboard music, showing why the music itself constrains any possible solution to that size of fifths (not tempered more tightly than sixth-comma, and not ever having more than 3 pure fifths in succession).
7.Furthermore, if you had actually read that 2022 article, you would know about Kirnberger *not* using quarter-comma fifths (he faked them arithmetically), and he never published that layout (it was only in a private letter in his last year). This wouldn’t be a point in your own premises about “their entire sonic universe” allegedly using only quarter-comma fifths or pure fifths. As I showed also, in that article: Bach’s colleague Sorge published that “Kirnberger 3” layout with 4 quarter-comma fifths 35 years before Kirnberger ever mentioned it, during Bach’s lifetime; and it did it in a pedagogical context where he was bringing it up only to show pointedly why it doesn’t work. As you would know about Kirnberger with a bit more reading, he spent his whole adult career promoting a different half-comma temperament that has nothing to do with the “Kirnberger 3” (as some modern enthusiasts call it).
8.Nothing has to be proven *to you*. I have contacted you privately and explained all my objections, twice, in detail. Your response has been that you only want to see a public response, and only here on one group, and that I (or anyone else) is not allowed to put up any reasoned defense against your material because you want to keep track of it all in one place. Then, don’t post it in 6 or more places! (I have already pointed this out privately.) As you have pointed out, some people over on “Early Music Performance Practice” have already said that they blocked you, and they gave their reasons. So what? They can do whatever they want. They can choose to read you, or not. They can fancy your argument style and your reposting style, or not.
9.You’ve asked me to “be specific” in my objections to your blog and your arguments. I have been, point by point, in the private discussion. And I already explained, in print and 20 years ago, why I interpreted Bach’s drawing as I did, and why it starts on F. That’s all public record, and freely available on my websites, as it has been for 20 years. Your blog posting here brings up these things as if you’ve never cared simply to go look up the answers. I’ve advised you where to find more than a thousand pages of relevant sources, showing you where my articles have bibliographies and footnotes; and I gave you a further list of suggested resources privately (sources written in German and French).
10.There is no orderly discussion possible on Facebook because it is not designed to be such a forum. We discussed that privately, too, before your demand to have me say it in public and only on Facebook in one specific group, this one “Bach and his Time” where (to your knowledge) people haven’t blocked you.
11.And…once again…all the answers to your tuning-theory questions, and the evidence that you keep complaining you don’t have, is in my published peer-reviewed articles and in FAQs on my websites, going through everything that has been vetted by real scholars and expert performers. You know where those resources are, too. If you want to argue any points in that 2022 article, bring it up specifically with a page number and direct quotations, prove that you have read and understood it, and then present your questions. I’d be glad to answer such things privately, the same way that (I hope) you would contact any other scholar to ask about the work.
12.When people point out your mistakes of logic or mistakes of fact in this and your next posting (the one complaining about a supposed “cult”), it does not turn your objections into a “certificate of absolute victory” (your words!) as correct. That’s a well-known fallacy. Somebody whose feelings are hurt just because their ideas aren’t accepted, that doesn’t make them correct. Only evidence and valid reasoning from valid premises would lead to credible results. I showed that to you privately, too, and here’s that again:
https://thinkingispower.com/logical-fallacies/…
13.Your demand to have your points refuted point by point in public, because you apparently haven’t read the published research, is an example of the “moving the goalposts” fallacy. An argument and a set of evidence that was good enough for peer-reviewed publication isn’t good enough for you because you say you don’t understand the reasoning. Answers are given, but you don’t like the answers, so you demand different answers. Well, that’s covered in that same web page that collects fallacies, in the “I’m entitled to my opinion” section. Yes, you are entitled to have your own opinion for your own edification. But demanding that published work be re-framed and restated *for your own satisfaction* against your own questions, which you demand be done in public, that’s grandstanding by you. It is not academic discourse or any proof or disproof of anything.
Bradley Lehman
片山俊幸 18th century Germans would number their paragraphs in published books. But this is Facebook chatter, and not publication, and not for any reproduction outside this immediate thread.
片山俊幸
1. I will omit the seasonal greeting.
2. When did I ever make such an alarming statement as “I will destroy your work”? Please point out exactly where I said that. That isn’t the case, is it? I simply titled my column “The Collapse of the Lehman Hypothesis”. In other words, I meant that “your hypothesis has already collapsed”. I never said anything about ruining your future. First of all, I would like you to stop distorting people’s words like that.
3. Please do not post URLs or PDFs of your academic papers from twenty years ago—or whatever they are—in this comments section ever again. From now on, please limit any “rebuttals” to my writing to written text only.
4. I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to as a “a false premise”. I certainly never claimed that the only important fifths are “quarter-comma fifths” or “pure fifths”. I believe I merely stated that it is a “historical fact” that the well-temperaments of that era were constructed primarily based on these two types.
5. No, I haven’t heard any actual “answer” from you. All I’ve received is a subjective excuse—claiming your tuning sounds more beautiful than equal temperament—along with a bundle of over a dozen URLs and PDFs from twenty years ago.
6. In that case, common sense dictates that you should cite the source and the specific passage here.
7. You are distorting my words again. When and where did I ever say that “their entire acoustic world” relied solely on quarter-comma fifths or pure fifths? Please cite the relevant passage. I am certain I stated, “While there are certainly clear exceptions…”. For instance, in *Bach’s Tuning*, Émile Jobin advocates for a wider Pythagorean fifth (702.905 cents); while I wouldn’t go so far as to say his argument is “correct”, I did find it “persuasive.” He resorts to none of the acrobatic maneuvers—such as flipping diagrams upside down or setting the reference pitch to F—that you do. In short, his argument is far more convincing than yours.
8. “I have no need to prove anything to you”? What is this supposed to mean? Is this a “white flag”? Yesterday, you sent me a long “private message” via Messenger. In response, I suggested that we conduct this debate in a “public forum” rather than through private correspondence. Isn’t that precisely why you are posting here now? And a “public forum” must also be a “fair forum”. After all, in the groups under your influence, “censorship” is openly practiced. I have taken screenshots of this. I want readers to see the reality of the situation: https://excelkobo.net/archive/10603
9. See? That is exactly how you order people to read a 1,000-page thesis. By the time someone is forced to read a text of that length, they lose all will to offer a “counterargument.” That would be bad enough on its own. But readers who mistake you for an “authority in the field” get brainwashed and join a cult known as the “Lehman cult”. Haven’t these brainwashed individuals been providing “covering fire” for you in various places over the past few days? As the “cult leader”, you must be fully aware of this reality.
10. “Facebook was not designed as a place for constructive debate in the first place”? Why do you think that? I believe this is the ultimate arena for a debate. As for why I singled out “Bach and his Time”, I have already stated my reasons above, so I will not repeat them here.
11. To reiterate: please answer using your own words, rather than simply providing URLs or PDFs from twenty years ago. I am certain that the readers following this exchange feel the same way.
12. I return those very words to you.
13. I *have* read them. And I regretted doing so; I felt it was a waste of time—that I shouldn’t have read them at all. Consequently, I remember almost nothing of the content. I ask you once again: please do not try to obfuscate the issue by pasting old URLs or PDFs here; instead, refute my points using your own words. Do it for the sake of the readers of this page as well. Thank you.
Bradley Lehman
8, where you are claiming or perceiving that you are being somehow “censored” in the “Early Music Performance Practice” group: That is absolutely untrue, as far as I know. Your postings are still there, and so are you, uncensored. Some members perhaps have blocked you *for themselves* because they don’t want to see anything from you anymore, and they said so, but that’s not “censoring” you. That is expressing their opinion of what you have posted.
Nor have I instructed anyone to do anything on my behalf. There is no “cult”! I do not “lead” anything. Anyone who chose to speak up over there did it of their own volition, reacting to you.
The “reality of the situation” is: here is a snapshot of your postings still showing up in a search over there, right now. No censorship!
[Some kind of image]
Bradley Lehman
That group “Early Music Performance Practice” has exactly 1 admin, Claudio di Veroli. He hasn’t censored you.
I see a posting from Loren Ludwig suggesting that some moderating ought to be done, but that’s not any censorship. It’s a member of the group expressing his opinion that your words were perhaps inappropriate. Mr Ludwig is, incidentally, a fellow scholar and another of the authors who wrote in the BACH journal (2022 issue) about expert decisions in tuning for Bach’s music. He is quite capable of formulating his own opinions about your words, and his own opinions about tuning instruments. Here is that:
[Some kind of image]
—————–
Bradley Lehman
3, 11, and 13. Before logging into Facebook this morning, I got up and captured a set of snapshots from my own articles and FAQ. All of this is from before 2010, except for tipping the citation of my 2022 article into the FAQ when that became available. And here they are, because they are all relevant in already answering your questions.
Furthermore, you started this fight or debate, or whatever you want to call it. You don’t get to dictate what evidence and ammunition your adversary brings to defend himself, where your adversary is showing that all the answers were already available to you. This is not “obfuscating” the issue where you say that my work is a “waste of time” for you. It is clarifying the issue where you are deliberately disregarding and disdaining evidence. I gave you the evidence. You don’t want to see it. That’s your problem.
My snapshots save you the trouble of going to look at the FAQ and the articles for yourself, that “waste of time” according to you.
And I do have fresh words that refute your points, as you demanded, but first we’ll see these snapshots that are part of it.
Bradley Lehman
[Some kind of image]
Bradley Lehman
[Some kind of image]
Bradley Lehman
[Some kind of image]
Bradley Lehman
[Some kind of image]
Bradley Lehman
[Some kind of image]
Bradley Lehman
[Some kind of image]
Bradley Lehman
[Some kind of image]
Bradley Lehman
[Some kind of image]
Bradley Lehman
[Some kind of image]
片山俊幸
Bradley Lehman Bradley,Thank you for your further clarification regarding the inner workings of the “Early Music Performance Practice” group and its administration.However, looking at the empirical reality from my end at this moment, there appears to be a slight discrepancy. As a matter of fact, my primary thread containing my latest article, “The Raving Frenzy…”, has unfortunately been removed from that group. Furthermore, my comments linking to my article series are currently restricted and marked as “Pending Approval” by the administrator, effectively hiding them from the public eye.Since you have kindly assured me that Mr. Claudio di Veroli does not engage in censorship and that no such intent exists within your circle, could I ask a small favor of you? Would it be possible for you to gently reach out to him on my behalf and ask if he might reconsider the status of my comments, so that they can be made visible to the group members once again?As we both agree that a fair, open, and orderly exchange of ideas is beneficial for the entire early music community, ensuring that our respective arguments remain fully accessible to the readers would be a wonderful step forward.I would truly appreciate your kind mediation in this matter.Sincerely,Toshi
As of September 27, 2026, 15:47 (Japan Standard Time)
……to be continued