Right, the second sentence describes a conspiracy theory, and the end of the article dismisses this theory. The person you were replying to concurs with this dismissal, and presents additional evidence.

No I think the person I was replying doesn't know that the article dismisses the conspiracy theory. I might be wrong

> I have no idea why this laughable article/idea persists

You are wrong about that. This is the third or fourth time I've seen this dippy nonsense in print, and I wish it did not persist. Its central sin is that it obscures the mundane, industrial-based reasons for the tuning standard's emergence.

I'm sorry for being wrong then, but I'm still a bit confused - which part of the article is inaccurate?

> Its central sin is that it obscures the mundane, industrial-based reasons for the tuning standard's emergence.

The article claims that tuning standards emerged because pitch inflation lead to problems for singers, is that inaccurate?

No apology needed!

And yes, the tuning standard emerged from the wishes of the owner of a single mallet instrument factory in Chicago named Deagan.

http://richsamuels.com/nbcmm/deagan/index.html