Quoting MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > 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. Exactly. > > > 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. In the original I used Pirsig has an example of Everyman who understands that those who make money support those who don't like those who pursue pure philosophy in an academic setting. That's just Economics 101. What I find surprising is how such an obvious statement raised such a ruckus. Like you asked, have I said anything at all? Apparently so. I guess there's something about money that sets people off. > > > 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. I cannot help what you believe or how you react to what I write. I try to present my views as honestly and clearly as I can. If I fall short I'll take complete responsibility and try to do better. I too am not a logician. But, if you asking me to change my views without presenting a convincing cogent argument with evidence, I respectfully decline. Platt ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
