Arlo, You cannot make me angry by using the word 'stupid'. Or frightened by the word buffoon. I remember what your technique can do. I remember you yelling 'gun on the list' and the trouble it caused. Meeoow.
Marsha On Jul 12, 2010, at 3:51 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote: > [Marsha] > Arlo's unhealthy technique for arguing. > > [Arlo] > Another round of accusations. Just like this morning when you accused me of > "stifling free speech", when I asked you for ONE example, you retreated to > your typical inanity. > > And now this. Okay. Marsha. Provide the EVIDENCE for these accusations. I > won't hold my breath. I understand its just a diversionary tactic. > > But see, this is the kind of dishonest bullshit that makes the two-three of > you look like absolute buffoons. If Bo ever wants to be taken seriously, I > suggest he find better supporters. Here's some advice, Marsha, stick to a few > incoherent posts going "meow" ever now and then, you'll maybe make a few > people confuse this with something other than stupidity. > > Or, you could try at something of substance for once? Or is dishonest > distraction really all you have to offer anymore? Or maybe you should just > respond "meow" and stick your head back in the ground. > > [Arlo repeats] > Why is the following such a seemingly alien concept for you, Platt and Bo? > > (1) Bo's formulation for a metaphysics is a critical revision of Pirsig's > metaphysics. > > (2) Bo might say "A metaphysics of Quality that holds the intellectual level > to SOM is better than A metaphysics of Quality that considers SOM to be one > on many intellectual patterns", instead of "THE metaphysics of Quality holds > the intellectual level to SOM". > > Why are you all so obsessively hung up on the word "THE", and what value do > you think it has? > > Do you disagree with me that we use the phrase "THE metaphysics of Quality" > as a conventional way of referring specifically to Pirsig's ideas, but that > it would in fact be more accurate to say "Pirsig's metaphysics"? > > Do you not see that obsessing on the "THE" objectifies the "MOQ" into some > "reality"... that even Pirsig can be "wrong" about? This makes no sense. > Pirsig can't be wrong about his ideas, but his ideas can be wrong. In the > same way, Bo's ideas are not "THE MOQ", they are his ideas. > > If we drop the word "THE", and instead simply talk about people's ideas, do > you not see how all this interpretive nonsense and need for authoritative > legitimacy would disappear? > > In other words, what do you think is wrong with saying "A metaphysics of > Quality that holds the intellectual level to SOM is better than A metaphysics > of Quality that considers SOM to be one on many intellectual patterns"? > > Does that not sum up your position? Why is it more important for you to say > instead "THE metaphysics of Quality holds the intellectual level to SOM"? > > > > 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
