[Steve]
That is how I saw your exchange with MP as well, but he sounds very
frustrated, so maybe we misunderstood something.
[Arlo]
Occam's Razor, Steve. He complains about how mired we all are in
static beliefs, and yet everyone who has engaged him has taken much
effort to try to explain the MOQ (Horse, DMB, Krimel, Marsha, Ron,
you, me...). At every turn (and you can reread the threads in the
archives) where we've dared to disagree with him, its just that "we"
are too static, too habituated, too blind, too this or too that.
If it was JUST ME, he'd have a point. But it's not. It's been "all of
us". And while I admit upfront to having little patience for this
type of stuff, everyone else has evidenced a great deal of patience
and genuine interest in explaining the MOQ to him. And yet all of
them, Ron, you, Marsha, Krimel, DMB, in every thread, have just been
accused of "not getting it", of being "static".
You didn't misunderstand the thread. You saw it as it was. *I* had
started saying "Quality requires no faith" (Ron and the others all
said the same thing). Michael then took great pains to "prove" that
"oh yes, the MOQ requires faith". But he is either unable to see (or
just dishonest) that this broad net he casts to protect the word
"faith" catches everything. He now wants to say that "science" is
outside "faith", but by his own definition that is simply not the
case. His subtle (but wholly problematic) addendum of "proof" only
makes that stance now subjective.
So sure, he is frustrated. But keep Occam's Razor in mind.
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/
