[Michael]
You've been pushing me personally yourself for several days now, clearly
fishing for a response. Don't pretend at innocence.

[Arlo]
If you reread the thread, you'll see that my "civility" eroded when you started
calling everyone "static" or "arrogant" or whatnot for not buying your premise.
I don't think anyone here (save for Platt and Ham) would consider me uncivil
(and with them I have long given up the idea that civil dialogue is able to
compete with their talk-radio bombast). 

I've said a few times lately I admit to having no patience with this. I hardly
think I was uncivil from Day One with you. Even throughout our theism thread I
felt I was civil. If you feel comparing your "god" to "leprechauns" is uncivil,
that has little to do with me. But the point remains, you have no more evidence
for your god that another may have for leprechauns. What I object to is your
desire to reduce Quality into that mire. 

And I do think I know why you do this. You admit theism is a joy of yours. You
are trying to reconcile that with a philosophy that is vociferously
anti-theistic. And I'm sure it irks you to have your "theism" dismissed as
"faith", and so if everything was "faith" such dismissal would be impossible. I
get that.

And I take umbrage that we don't accept other views. Hell, 99% of the talk on
this forum is "I disagree". Very, very rarely you get posts of support and
agreement, but if anything we all (even those who agree on the core ideas of
the MOQ) disagree quite frequently.

What I think most of us react very strongly too, however, is an argument that
is based on a misunderstanding (or non-understanding) of the core ideas of the
MOQ, and that is why you are drawing more vocal resistance than others might.
Hell, look at DMB and Krimel, both contributors I find eminently more
knowledgeable than I, and yet they each feel the other simply does not "get
it". And I agree with them both 90% of the time (not about not getting it,
about their ideas). 

Anyways, you can take the role of the misunderstood and abused dissenter (if
Ham will relinquish it for a while), but don't expect candy canes and gum drops
when you start off an argument from outside the MOQs core.

Okay. Was THIS civil enough. :-)




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/

Reply via email to