Ham:
Now that you have complimented Arlo on his masterfully fabricated
reinvention of my 10/28 post, you wonder why I don't respond to either of
you. Would YOU respond to people who take delight in slandering and
misrepresenting your belief system? What possible benefit would it serve,
other than encouraging more of the same?
woods:
I understand and feel your frustration. I asked some pretty good
questions,
I thought, in agreement with mel on your post. I was leaving the door open and
asked some questions that would help clarify for me what you might have meant.
But when you don't answer the questions for clarification, then the door
is open too wild speculation. For I've had many discussions with you
and thus have developed an incoherent understanding of your thesis. I'm
not deciding based on first time chats with you. And yet, through all
this and all this time, I still left the door open for clarification on what
you meant, but you didn't respond. It's a discussion Ham. You seem
to want everything to be solved in one swoop and be done with it. Questions
seem to annoy you. Sorry.
Ham:
I make it a policy to respond only to statements or questions directed
specifically to me, unless it is a topic that piques my interest or an issue
in which I can make a positive contribution.
woods:
I had asked you directly in the post previous to my response with Arlo. I had
asked and commented:
"Was this the basis of Ham's post? Was Ham pointing out
the "social tinkering" from the Ivory Tower in these gov't
legislations? This would be a bold intellectual pursuit that
might be something to bravery pursue. Not race and the violent
conflicts of race on race (undoubtably immoral), but a more
intellectual debatable pursuit of the legislation coming from the
top-down/ivory tower? Is this what was meant?"
woods continues:
You see Ham. I even said, "...might be something to bravely pursue."
(meant
bravely not bravery).
Ham:
You say you are "waiting for Ham to respond to his position on people being
able to freely think." Now, what position do you suppose a free-thinking
person who has been preaching "individual freedom" for years, and has even
criticized Pirsig for failing to acknowledge man as the "free agent" of
value, would take? Your accusation is preposterous. Kindly point me to a
single sentence posted by me which stated, or implied, that I was against
people thinking for themselves or having "different opinions" about reality.
(I don't accept responsibility for what others may construe or "paraphrase"
from my statements, and I can only assume that this is such a case.)
woods:
It was a long time ago. It had something to do with why you didn't
like the moq. It left too much space for differing interpretations, and I
responded
with it is like poetry. It helps you think for yourself, and you said that was
a
problem. But I'm willing to drop this and move on. It was some time ago.
woods
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/
