Hello everyone On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:25 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Horse said to Krim: > You're completely wrong about who has a right to say what on this forum. This > is a place to discuss Robert Pirsigs MoQ and not just every single thing that > comes into anyone's head. .. I do have the right to remove people that I > think are either detrimental to the running of this list or I believe have no > purpose here other than to promote some personal agenda. .. This has nothing > to do with thought police or censorship or any other nonsense that's raised > to try and force me to run this list the way others want. It has to do with a > list administrators right to perform his or her job as they see fit. And as > I've said before if this is not acceptable to any member then they should > leave. > > dmb says: > > Exactly. As Arlo so clearly explained, every community of discourse has its > boundaries. Far from being a form of censorship, these boundaries define a > space in which we can think. Those borders are not supposed to keep out > alternative views or new ideas, of course. They keep out the noise so that > views and ideas can be heard. A agree with Arlo on that point too. "I don't > see anyone being "bullied" into silence" and "Horse is far more forgiving and > generous than I would be". In fact, the lovely sentiment expressed "the > fucking thought police" by Krimel is a bullying tactic if ever there was one. > The basic idea is, "I can say whatever I want or you are a Nazi". That kind > of talk overblown, to say the least. C'mon. Would be oppressive or > dictatorial or Stalinist to ask the members of a MOQ discussion group to > discuss the MOQ? Or to refrain from getting in the way of those who do want > to? It's not about what big brother wants, it's just about the forum's > purpose. On another matte > r,... > > Arlo said: > ...While there seems to be unresolvable conflict between John and DMB, I > think DMB was just responding from his own, more private, view that > expressing some things in a permanently public media is not wise. It is an > opinion I personally share. Ultimately, John has made the decision to share > his troubles with the list, and I think this is not an issue given the amount > he participates in otherwise topical reconstruction. Certainly, I wish him > well. > > > dmb says: > > Thanks Arlo. That's how I see it too. My concern about John's personal post > was not only that it was outside the topical parameters, it also unwisely > confessed too much. I have to confess that it makes me uncomfortable when > people seek love or sympathy in a place like this.
Dan: I tend to agree. All my stories are fictional in nature though rooted in experience. As I explained to Adrie, the stories I share here are like the artists of old who traveled to Italy and studied their craft then traveled back home and used the Italian landscape as a backdrop in their paintings. I have to work at writing. One story can take months. Years even. I have never actually finished a story to my satisfaction. There is always a way to make it better. I read each sentence over and over until it is ingrained in my mind and I can shape each word and shift it at will. And I work it over and over, never quite happy I have it right. I find it impossible to write as personally as some contributors here. I have to have that distance... say, thirty years or so. The tales I spin bend and twist in ways I never quite expect. When I am writing well, there is a feeling that I am writing well. And when I'm not writing well, I know it. Immediately. And there is no sense fighting it. I am a story teller, not an autobiographer. And if I choose to share my stories, it is in hopes that others may find some value there, not to tug heart strings. It is fiction. Nothing more. . If I have ever given anyone the impression that my stories are true, I apologize. They are not. A person will not come to know me by my stories dmb: >I used to love book discussion groups but there was always one or two people >who'd show up wanting to talk about anything BUT the book. Usually, they >hadn't read the book and they were lonely. It pulled on my heart strings of >course, but it also made me angry. It's pretty damn inconsiderate and >self-indulgent, really. Either you had to let them spoil the book discussion, >which was the main point of being there, or you had to be a dick about it. >These are usually not the type of people that can take a hint, you know, so >you gotta say something about sticking to the topic out loud in front of >everybody. Then they pretend to go while along while looking for a chance to >get their revenge with some snide commen > t or other. It's really quite distracting. Then there are the people who > call talk shows to express their opinion on a topic other than the one being > broadcast. when you explain that they are off the topic and invite them to > call back some other time, they often scream about their free speech rights. > Anyway, I've got some experience with people who don't have a very strong > sense of these kind a parameters. It's funny, they sincerely wonder why > others don't want to listen to them and seem genuinely offended that any such > parameters should apply to them. Dan: There are always those people who find more value in expressing themselves than in listening to others. >dmb: > But I don't think there's all that much conflict between John and me. I > expressed some sympathy off line about his separation from his wife recently, > while also saying no thanks again to a Royce debate. He seemed to take that > well enough. As I see it, he's way too soft on theism and he's in love with a > dead philosophy but it's not personal. Like I said to the guy off line > (oops!), I don't even pretend to know him. Can you know anyone through an > email? Not really. In my experience, if I know somebody only thru email, one > still photograph will alter my impression entirely. Imagine what a difference > a real, face to face conversation would make. You don't really ever know a > person until you've gone on a road trip with them. Or camping. > Dan: Well, I find that I don't know myself. So I am astonished when others claim that they know me. I can assure everyone though that even those people who I see face to face everyday do not, nor will they ever, know me, despite whatever labels they seek to label me with. I form opinions of others, often in a moment. But, I would never claim to know them. How could I? How can anyone know anyone else with certainty? 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
