Michael writes: The degree of personal vindiction in here is thick enough to cut with a knife. Its too bad. It makes thinking things through with words in here *very* difficult. Why can't we all agree to respect each others' views, listen to ideas and thoughts, debate them, even with vigor, but not make it *personal*? There are some here who seem to have no problem doing so.
Why can't we all disagree without being disagreeable? Ron writes: Bo, ?Reading your post only leaves me asking if you need psychological help a change in medication or you are stoned out of your gourd. Your posts follow no continuity except for the repetitious argument that one can only guess is written on wine stained index cards and copied verbatim in a drunken stupor. You are soo fucked up that I am at a loss, you are clearly insane and have some serious problems. Joe Maur is Mark twain compared to your psychotic babble. Please get some help. Andre: Hi Michael, Ron, and all. This was the thing that got me to write the first verse of 'Across the Universe'.(Untill Marsha posted it) I agree with you MP that we should separate the exchange of ideas and points of view, with who comes up with them. They float around in people's culture and heads and if they contain a degree of quality for the person then they should be allowed to be expressed. It is immoral for a society to kill an idea. Refutation of an idea, regardless of who presents it, should occur on a basis of argumentation and counter argumentation with the ideas being argued about and not the wellbeing or otherwise of the person. And, I would like to add: from within the MoQ context, so that we can all learn from eachother. I know that Bodvar can look after himself but do want to say this: I cannot think of anyone here on this Discuss being more committed to the MoQ than he is. He has defended his SOL/ MOQ position for more than ten years now and has copped flack from many. He has also pulled many into line when he felt they were straying too far from the MoQ path. And has been appreciated for that! Now, my own understanding of the MoQ is nowhere near complete so cannot make a definitive judgement.I have read the annotations to the LC however and Pirsig's comments are clear...when someone has the wrong notion about something concerning the MoQ he says so very clearly (he does this also when they are correct). Pirsig has NOT dismissed the SOL interpretation. He has merely stated that if it has quality it will percolate to the top. Simple. Bodvar has produced a 'paper' outlining his SOL argument. It is there for everyone to see and to criticise BUT I have yet to find someone who has produced a paper that systematically, point by point, shows where s/he thinks the reasoning/interpretation of the SOL is wrong or misguided. (I am not talking about the bits and pieces that fly around here somewhere). And this has gone on for ten odd years now. Criticise the idea, WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE MOQ, support your arguments with clear MOQ reasoning and please refrain from ridicule. For what it is worth. Andre 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/
