At 11:26 AM 8/26/2007, you wrote: >Quoting MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > At 10:00 AM 8/26/2007, you wrote: > > >Quoting MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > Platt, > > > > > > > > It seems to me, as evidenced by your answers, you are using ambiguity > > > > to present and defend your political opinions. Okay. > > > > > > > > Marsha > > > > > >Marsha, > > > > > >I've tried to make my positions clear, but if I've failed I'll gladly take > > >the blame. If you can point out the "ambiguity" in my statements, I'll > > >certainly try to clarify them. > > > > > >Platt > > > > Platt, > > > > If you are now using "making money" in such a general and ambiguous > > way, have you said anything at all? > >Marsha, > >Please specify why you consider "making money" to be general and ambiguous? >Is not producing goods and services for sale on the market sufficient >clarification? If not, why not?
Platt, I didn't state that I considered "making money" to be general and ambiguous. You expanded and contract the meaning of the phrase a number to times. Lastly you defined it as the underlying exchange for services and goods sold. This would be true in Communist & Socialist countries. Somewhere, underlying services and goods sold, there would be some exchange of money. We haven't used beads or barter for a long time. > > But you did originally try to > > pull RMP's support for you opinion out of those vaporous > > presumptions. That's exploitation, not logical argument. > >What is mean or unfair (exploiting) about using Pirsig to support my opinion? The Pirsig statement you quoted did not directly relate to your original. You made a huge leap. > > The time to be clear in your explanations, is when they are initially > > presented. > >Ideally, yes. But I cannot read someone's mind as to how what I write will >be interpreted. That's why I try to explain further if asked, as do others in >reasonable conversation. Reasonable conversation, in this forum, would be foundation understanding of the MOQ, where general agreement might be, more or less, assumed. In conversations where opposing sides are being presented, such assumptions cannot be made. Right and Left politics would be such a case. I am not a logician. And I'm sure you can squash me like a bug. But there are times in your political discourse when you are just flinging it. I've come to believe that you don't even believe what you are writing, but are acting as a provocateur. Or maybe seeing how easily you can get others to turn purple. But I could be wrong. Marsha Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
