I'm in agreement with Glove. The rules of the forum should be clearly posted. If these are the rules, they should be prominently displayed on the home page to avoid inadvertent transgressions.
[Glove] in which case forum > rules are now: > > #1 You must have read Pirsig's 2 books > #2 You may not say that SOL was Pirsig's idea > In clarity, Mary On Behalf Of Dan Glover > Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 10:08 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] Intellectual honesty > > Hello everyone > > On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Steven Peterson > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi dmb, Dan, Horse > > > > > >> Dan said to John: > >> I never thought Bo should be banned... > > > > > >> dmb says: > >> Right. Exactly. > > > > > > Steve: > > If those supporting Horse's action don't think Bo ought to be banned > > then I am as confused as Matt is about what administrative action we > > are talking about here. I mean, yeah, yeah, yeah...I agree that Bo is > > all these flavors of horrible (and probably also a pretty good guy), > > but what specific administrative action are we talking about? Is > it... > > Dan: > I thought Horse made that clear. Didn't he? Maybe you want to go back > and re-read his post. > > > > > 1) a new forum rule where anyone claiming that SOL is Pirsig's idea > > risks being banned? > > 2) a administrative request that Bo shut the hell up about SOL for a > while? > > 3) a specific threat leveled at Bo that he will be banned if he in > > particular continues to say that SOL was Pirsig's idea? > > 4) something else, like Bo will be banned if he continues to try to > > woo every newbie that comes along by flattering them and telling them > > about how they have blessedly managed to stumble upon the Great > > Insight? > > > > None of us think that Bo's SOL thesis is worth a darn and wish he > > would stop harping on it, but what action are you defending here? I > > thought it was 1) at first, but maybe it is 2) since you don't think > > Bo ought to be banned. I thought Horse had done 1) in which case > forum > > rules are now: > > > > #1 You must have read Pirsig's 2 books > > #2 You may not say that SOL was Pirsig's idea > > > > (Are there other rules to add to this list?) But perhaps Horse only > > intended 2). I normally delete any posts addressed to or from Bo, so > > I'm not at all clear about what has transpired. Is there a new forum > > rule or not? > > Dan: > Since you addressed this email to me, I'll answer you as best I can. > Steve, aren't you a teacher? I thought you said that somewhere. Do you > tolerate intellectual dishonesty in your classroom? I mean, what if a > student goes online and downloads papers to turn in rather than > putting in the work themselves? And you find out. Do you give them an > "A" because it is a quality paper? Or do you confront them about > taking someone else's work and claiming it for their own? > > There are already rules against that, right? I'm not at all sure you > understand what Horse is saying. Please. Re-read his post. > > Dan > 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/md/archives.html 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/md/archives.html
