So as not to be accused of name-calling in-kind, I thought I'd point out that my "Fuck off!" was a directive with a explanation mark for emphasis. - m On Sep 12, 2010, at 1:27 PM, MarshaV wrote:
> > > dmb, > > It's been my experience that your best shot is always naming calling. Fuck > off! > > > Marsha > > > > > On Sep 12, 2010, at 1:24 PM, david buchanan wrote: > >> >> dmb said to Marsha: >> .., you are seemingly oblivious to the central objection. Your response does >> not even mention it, ..We have Pirsig on record about this, you know? He >> thinks that equating the intellectual level with SOM undermines the MOQ. >> That's the objection you're not hearing, Marsha. >> >> >> >> Marsha says: >> I am hearing the objection. I understand the MoQ differently than you. Yea >> me!!! >> >> >> dmb says: >> >> No, boo you. If you really heard the objection, you wouldn't be calling your >> view "different". You'd be addressing the objection. And your view is not >> just different from mine, it's different than the author's. The inventor of >> the MOQ has explicitly condemned the equation you're using, but you're >> sticking to it anyway. What's worse, this hopelessly immovable position has >> been constructed out of a whole series of bad definitions misconceptions. >> "If my explanation is inadequate", you said, "I will try to find better >> words". Again, this response dismisses the main objection. >> >> Instead of trying to find better words, why not deal with the objections? >> Obviously, those objections will tell you specifically how and why people >> are finding your explanations inadequate. Instead of defending your right to >> think freely, which nobody is attacking, why don't you defend your ability >> to think carefully and responsibly? If you address the objections that've >> already been posted, you'd be directly confronting the inadequacies already >> spotted. Responding with "not this, not that. Yea, me" just doesn't count as >> a response at all. It's like you're at band practice every member of the >> band is telling you, one by one, that you're out of tune. And your response >> is to defend your right to sing "differently"? that response only shows that >> you're still not hearing the objection. >> >> Again from the top... >> >> >> >> >> 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 ___ 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
